Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

EC-ASEAN Relations

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing relations between the European Community and the ASEAN countries.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Considerable progress has been made in strengthening relations during the United Kingdom's presidency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs personally attended two ministerial meetings with ASEAN in Manila in 1992, the second of which I also attended. The outcome of the EC-ASEAN ministerial meeting last October has increased co-operation in a range of fields, including trade, environmental protection, technical co-operation and human rights.

Mr. Spring: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the meeting of the ASEAN Trade and Industry Ministers in Jakarta in December, to discuss and promote the newly created free trade area? That new area offers important investment and export opportunities to British business. In the light of those developments, will my right hon. Friend comment on the relationship between the EC and the emerging ASEAN free trade area?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes. We and our European Community parners welcome the establishment of the ASEAN free trade area, which seeks to achieve a trading regime compatible with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, with progressively lower tariffs. On 11 December, the AFTA council decided on the first tranche of tariff reductions on a wide range of articles from 1 January this year. We hope that that will boost commercial relations between the Community and ASEAN countries, which already run at $50 billion a year in two-way trade. Our trade relations are of great importance. The ASEAN countries are enjoying high growth rates and offer many significant opportunities for British investment and trade.

Middle East

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on progress with the middle east peace process.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The eighth round of bilateral negotiations between the Arabs and Israel ended in Washington on 16 December. It is slow progress and the next round is expected next month. Recent events, including the killing of Sergeant Major Toledano and the deportation of 415 Palestinians from the occupied territories, underline the fact that the peace process is the only way to resolve the problem.

Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for Saddam Hussein to ignore United Nations resolutions and for Israel to ignore United Nations resolutions over the plight of the 415 Palestinians deported from that country? Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Israeli Government, pointing out the urgency of complying with the United Nations resolution if there is to be any return to peace and any possibility of success with the peace process in the middle east?

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. The two cases are, of course, very different. On the second, the Israeli Government know our view—which is the Security Council's view—that the action that they have taken is in violation of their obligations under the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits deportation from occupied territory regardless of the motive. We believe—we hope—that the Israeli Government will allow those deported to return to their homes.

Mr. Dalyell: Do Egypt and Bahrain support military action against Iraq?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman must ask them for their views. I am accountable for the policy of this Government. Iraq is defying the United Nations and the international community. It has not complied with representations made to it on the southern no-fly zone and has refused UNSCOM—the United Nations special commission—permission to fly into Iraq. It has violated the border with Kuwait and has moved missiles into northern Iraq.
The Security Council has made clear its views on all these matters and Iraq should be in no doubt that the consequences will be serious. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to speculate on the form that those consequences might take. The House will be kept closely informed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be answering a private notice question later this afternoon; I have to leave for a special Foreign Affairs Council on Yugoslavia.

Mr. Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend considers recent events in the middle east, will he bear in mind the fact that Israel has to deal with the Iranian-backed Hamas movement—an organisation which is dedicated not only to the destruction of the state of Israel but to the ending of the whole peace process on which so many hopes and lives ultimately depend?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly Israel has legitimate security interests and we entirely sympathise with its desire to


stamp out terrorism. I do not, however, believe that the means that it has used on this occasion—by deporting the people in question—are a sensible way of setting about it.

Sir David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that, deplorable though the murder of the Israeli sergeant-major was, the Israeli Government's response has been completely disproportionate and that that response is not only inhumane—as we have all seen from the television pictures—but extremely stupid, because it plays precisely into the hands of those Palestinian extremists who wish to stop the peace process?

Mr. Hurd: If I commented, I should be repeating what I have already said. We condemned the murder of the Israeli border guard and we entirely understand Israeli preoccupations with Hamas and its negative and destructive policies. We also believe, however, that the peace process—including, in particular, the dialogue with the Palestinians—is crucial. We hope that it will be possible to solve this problem before it gets in the way of the resumption of the talks.

Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind the tragic plight of the 415 Palestinians, does my right hon. Friend see any great possibility of negotiating more successfully with the present Israeli Government than with the previous one?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed so. There has been a radical and welcome change of policy in Israel as a result of the election. I hope that the present problem can be solved. The Secretary-General's special envoy, Mr. Gharekhan, is reporting on his mission to the region. Discussions are in progress and I very much hope that they will succeed.

Mr. Kaufman: Reverting to the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees that the repeated Iraqi violations of the ceasefire resolutions are unacceptable and that Iraqi offers of constructive negotiation are ludicrous in the light of those violations and of Iraq's repeated attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members will support military action—provided that civilians are protected—to ensure that Iraq obeys the ceasefire resolutions?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I agree with his analysis. The House will not expect me to say anything further at this point, but, as I said, the House will be kept closely informed.

Mr. Marlow: Given that it is nearly 50 years since the last war ended, should not we now treat Israel in the same way diplomatically as we would treat any other delinquent country? Given that the 400 people were picked up from their only home without trial or charge and deposited on someone else's territory, should not we consider some form of sanction against Israel until it learns how to behave properly?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that would be right. We have made clear our view of the Israeli action and what we think should happen—that a way should be found for those deported to be returned home. That way is now being sought and I hope that it can be found.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recognise that we denounce the activities of Saddam Hussein unequivocally and that we support—and have

always supported—the enforcement of the air exclusion zones in Iraq to safeguard the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, whatever military action may ensue in support of the enforcement of those air exclusion zones, it is covered by the terms of the United Nations resolution 688, under which the air exclusion zones were established in the first place?
Will he also explain whether it is true, as reported in the Sunday Mirror recently, that he personally authorised a visit to Britain of people from Iraq to discuss with GEC the purchase of telecommunications systems? If it is true, does that give completely confusing messages to not only Saddam Hussein about our relations with him, but the people of Britain about the Government's real intentions?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to speculate on the possible consequences of Iraq's defiance of the United Nations Security Council. I am grateful for what he said about that. Obviously, any measures that are taken will need to be, and will be, in full compliance with international law.
The same point covers the hon. Gentleman's second question. I have not come to the House armed with details of the matter reported in the Sunday Mirror, so I must clearly supply him with them, which I will. Certainly, neither I nor any of my colleagues have authorised any action which could lead anyone in the United Kingdom to believe that it was correct or possible under our law to break the sanctions of the United Nations.

Mr. Batiste: As Hamas is an Iranian-sponsored organisation, what representations have been made to the Iranian Government with a view to curtailing the activities of Hamas in seeking to disrupt the middle east peace process?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that such representations are likely to be fruitful, but I will certainly study my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Foreign Secretary's reply, may I give notice that I hope to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 20?

Yugoslavia

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current discussions he has had with other Foreign Ministers about the long-term future of the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: European and north American Foreign Ministers met repeatedly in December for discussions on the problems of the former Yugoslavia in a number of fora, including the NATO council, the EC and the steering committee of the international conference in Geneva.
The European Council in Edinburgh declared again that the Serbian nation faced a clear choice: if there were a radical change of policy, Serbia would gradually be admitted to the international community. If not, existing sanctions and pressures would be tightened and extended to isolate Serbia.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Common Market countries are partly responsible for the


problems that exist in the former Yugoslavia? Is not it true that several months ago Germany, after annexing East Germany, decided to recognise Croatia, and that the Government and the rest of the Common Market countries agreed with it? Is not that the same Croatia which supported Hitler in the second world war and was responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Serbs?
Is not it ironic that the Common Market, which wants political union with 12 nation states, is now taking part in the fragmentation of the former Yugoslavia? Are not these double standards?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry to have to tell the House that a British soldier was killed in Bosnia this morning. I know that the House will join me in expressing our sorrow and sympathy to his family.
I do not accept the analysis of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was right for us all, and certainly the Government, to find out whether it was possible to hold Yugoslavia together by consent, which would have been the best answer. However, that was made impossible, not least by the Serbs.
So we had the emergence of republics. Historians will argue for years about the timing of recognition, but, whatever one's feelings about it, it was a matter of months. No one would seriously argue that we should today refuse to recognise the existence, which is a fact, of a Croatia which is very different from the Croatia and Croat leadership of 1943, 1944 and 1945.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is every bit as important to have peace in the Balkans as it is to have peace in the middle east? Does he further agree that if, as we all devoutly hope, the talks in Geneva result in a proper peace under international auspices, it will be the duty of the international community to guarantee that settlement?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly welcome the extent of progress yesterday in Geneva. My hon. Friend brought the Foreign Minister of Bosnia to see me this morning and I am grateful for that. I found that he, who represented his country at the talks, welcomed the progress, although he was understandably sceptical on the ground that what counts is not what is agreed at Geneva but whether the Bosnian Serbs honour that agreement. Meanwhile, we must keep up the pressure. But my hon. Friend is perfectly right that any eventual agreement achieved in Geneva through the EC-UN process will need to be underwritten by the international community.

Mr. George Robertson: First, may I join in expressing the sympathy and deep condolences of the Opposition for the relations of the British soldier who was killed this morning in Bosnia. Our troops, wearing the blue helmet of the United Nations, are involved in the heroic task of getting humanitarian help to thousands of people who would otherwise die in the winter of this horrible civil war. It was never going to be a risk-free operation, but it is still a singular tragedy when even one of our troops is killed for the greater good of the people of that troubled area.
May I also commend the outcome of the Vance-Owen talks in Geneva, which have shown the first glimmer of hope for that area for a long time? My hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I met the Bosnian Foreign Minister, Mr. Silajdic, this morning, as did the Foreign

Secretary. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is crucial that when Lord Owen reports at the EC Foreign Ministers' meeting this afternoon, it is made clear that an enduring peace will be guaranteed only by the permanent cessation of the use of heavy weapons in the area and that we must continue the pursuit of those who are accused of war crimes in the region?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House yesterday, our troops in Bosnia are carrying out a necessary job successfully. So far they have escorted 147 convoys and carried almost 12,000 tonnes of food and humanitarian supplies. That means that lives have been saved in places which until then it was hard to reach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. The corralling of heavy weapons was agreed in principle at the London conference in August. It has not happened, partly because the Bosnian Serbs have not agreed to it and partly as a result of the difficulties of arranging it. I am sure that we shall discuss both points this evening with Lord Owen.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard from the Bosnian Foreign Minister this morning that he wants the arms embargoes lifted so that Bosnia does not continue to fight with one arm behind its back. He also wants the no-fly zone under Security Council resolution 781 to be enforced. What further steps can be taken on both matters?

Mr. Hurd: On the no-fly zone, there are no combat missions—that is, no Bosnian Serb bombers or fighters are striking at targets in Bosnia—from those airports. There have been helicopter flights, which are certainly in breach of the United Nations resolution, as are some Croation flights. The members of the Security Council are fairly near the end of their consideration of how the Security Council should react to those violations.
I know the Foreign Minister's view about the arms embargo, although it was not at the top of his agenda this morning. I do not believe in half an arms embargo. In practice, it will not be possible to allow the arming of one party to a conflict and expect the other party to go without resupply. In practice we would find that Serbia would be resupplied by those who sympathise with her. As Bosnia is already awash with arms, the war would be likely to continue rather than be brought to an end. Perhaps that is why this morning the Bosnian Foreign Minister put the emphasis on demilitarisation, beginning with the corralling of heavy weapons, not on militarisation.

Bosnia

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Bosnia to discuss British relations with Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There are no immediate plans for a further ministerial visit to Bosnia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visited Bosnia on 22 December to see British troops deployed in the UNPROFOR peacekeeping operation. Our relations with the Bosnian Government are good. As has been said, my right hon. Friend and I met the Bosnian Foreign Minister


this morning. The British Government have played a leading role in the international effort to resolve the Bosnian crisis.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Foreign Secretary was right to express the wish, which I am sure is reflected in all parts of the House, that our condolences should be sent to the relatives of the British service man who lost his life this morning.
What representations are the Government making about that tragic death and what consequences will it have for our approach, for example, to the United Nations with a view to beefing up the mandate, to prevent such tragic incidents from happening? What assurances can the Minister give the House about bringing all possible pressure to bear on the Serbs in Bosnia to conclude a speedy negotiated settlement which will satisfy the international community? Finally, can he assure us that no such settlement would preclude the right of the international community to pursue and bring to book people found guilty of crimes during the conflict and recent events in Serbia?

Mr. Hogg: The death of the British soldier is a tragedy. We do not yet know the full circumstances. We shall try to find them out as speedily as possible and we must then determine what lessons are to be learnt. We shall make a report as soon as possible.
On the question of the Bosnian Serbs, the hon. Gentleman is broadly right. We must make it entirely plain to them that if the agreement to which Dr. Karadzic put his hand is not approved and carried forward, the Serbs in Bosnia will face an ever-deepening crisis.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that British military involvement in Bosnia is, and continues to be perceived to be, purely for humanitarian purposes? Will he endeavour to preserve that position?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence responded to a similar question yesterday. He confirmed the statement that my hon. Friend has just made and I can confirm it once again.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister accept that there is always a danger of the conflict spreading to Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere in the region? Military intervention by other powers would turn that risk into an absolute certainty and encourage people in other parts of Yugoslavia who are even more extreme than those who have power. Will he also make it clear to President Tudjman of Croatia that the existence of UNPROFOR in Krajina is essential beyond the end of next February, to ensure that a conflict does not arise there, too?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his question. I saw President Tudjman in late December and told him that the presence of United Nations forces in the United Nations protected areas was, to our way of thinking, a matter of cardinal importance. I hope that the mandate will be renewed when it expires in the latter part of February. As regards Kosovo and Macedonia, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It is partly for that reason that I am glad that there is a CSCE presence in Kosovo and that a reconnaissance party of United Nations troops is already in Macedonia.

Mr. Churchill: While we must all hope that the Vance-Owen plan brings peace to Bosnia, is it not now a matter of urgency for the international community to move to ensure that all heavy weapons in Bosnia come under direct United Nations control? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make that a high priority for Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Hogg: In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already responded to my hon. Friend's question. The demilitarisation of Bosnia is a very important part of the agreement to which Dr. Karadzic put his signature yesterday.

Mr. John D. Taylor: With many of my constituents serving with the Royal Irish Regiment in Bosnia, I naturally wish to extend sympathy to the family whose son has been killed today.
Does the Minister agree that the Government are placing British troops in an impossible position by asking them to carry out humanitarian work in the midst of a civil war in which, politically, we are seen to be actively opposed to one of the participants?

Mr. Hogg: I think that the proper way to describe the activities of British soldiers in Bosnia is to say that they have been remarkably successful in performing an immensely important task. They have acted with enormous courage and skill and, as a result of what they have done and are doing, tens of thousands of people are now living who might otherwise be dead.

European Community

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the EC since the Edinburgh summit.

Mr. Hurd: There have been two substantial developments in the European Community since the summit in Edinburgh; notably the single market, which came into effect on 1 January, and the agreement of Foreign Ministers on 21 December that negotiations for full membership of the Community with Austria, Finland and Sweden should open at our meeting on 1 and 2 February.

Mr. Riddick: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a United Kingdom presidency which was far more successful than the knockers and whingers on the Opposition Benches would have us believe?
Now that the single market is in place, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will have less red tape and fewer directives coming out of Brussels? Will he also confirm that, as a result, the EC in general and the Commission in particular will turn their attention to extending free trade throughout the world, which, of course, means in particular ensuring a successful outcome of the GATT negotiations?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The presidency had its roughish moments, but I am glad that it ended with a success and a smile. As my hon. Friend has said, one result of the single market is that the volume of legislation in the EC has already begun to drop markedly. We expect and hope that that trend will continue, partly as a result of subsidiarity as it comes into effect.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the GATT negotiations. It is the aim of the Commission and of most member states to achieve agreement as soon as possible. The basic deadlock between the EC and the United States on agriculture was removed during our presidency and now we have to wrap up other details, some of which are still intractable.

Mrs. Ewing: Given that one of the important issues discussed during the British presidency was the need for increased powers for the European Parliament, as crystallised at the Edinburgh summit by the agreement to increase the number of seats at that Parliament, is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to advise us how the extra six seats allocated to the United Kingdom will be distributed? Will he tell us whether, in the interests of fairness, proportional representation will come into play?

Mr. Hurd: No. I think that the hon. Lady can take it that we will need to change the boundaries of the European parliamentary seats, and decisions about how to proceed will be taken soon.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the widespread confusion that was created when the leaders of countries such as Spain and Eire went back to their homelands after the Edinburgh summit to report that they had gained billions of pounds while the leaders of countries such as Britain and Germany, which pay the money, said that the extra costs would be minimal? Would it not help to remove that confusion if the Foreign Secretary appealed to the Commission or the Council of Ministers to publish their estimate of who will gain what as a result of Edinburgh and who will pay for it? It will simply undermine confidence if the sums do not add up.

Mr. Hurd: It is not unusual for people who go to a negotiating session to return and say that they are reasonably satisfied with the result, but to no Member of this House is there any mystery about the actual facts and figures or about the way in which the original proposals by President Delors were first whittled down as a result of his own compromise and then further substantially reduced at Edinburgh. The result was modest compared with that of the last review, in 1988, and that will give my hon. Friend substantial satisfaction.

Armenia

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current position in Armenia; and what further measures he intends to take to relieve the situation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Armenia is experiencing acute hardship as a result of the collapse of the Soviet system, shortage of natural resources and the confrontation with Azerbaijan. We are urging Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve their differences through the negotiations of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Nagorno-Karabakh. The United Kingdom is contributing £450,000 to Nagorno-Karabakh relief programmes of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross and is a contributor to the European Community's 36 million ecu loan to help Armenia to buy food and medicines.

Mr. Tipping: The Foreign Secretary will know that the Lord Byron school in Leninakhan was gifted by the British Government. It is twinned with the Holgate school in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire. The staff, pupils and parents of the latter have collected enormous sums of money and equipment for their friends in Armenia, but the aid is not reaching its destination because lorries are being hijacked. Will the Minister consider ways in which he might complement the excellent work of the people at this school?

Mr. Hogg: All credit to the pupils of the school who have raised this money. I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he would care to discuss it with me in greater detail I shall see what, if anything, we can do to help.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In view of the assistance that the British Government are giving to Armenia, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the continuing six-year war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is a significant source of instability in the region? Does he agree that an important role in any negotiations to end that dispute must be taken by Turkey, which is giving significant assistance to Turkish people in Azerbaijan?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right: the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh is extremely destabilising for that region. The proper way forward is for everybody to recognise that there must be autonomy, within Azerbaijan, for the peoples of Nagorno-Karabakh, that Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be an independent state and cannot be absorbed into Armenia. The proper way forward is through negotiations designed to achieve autonomy status for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan.
On the question of Turkey, the Turkish Government do indeed have a prominent role to play in stabilising the situation. I have spoken to the Turkish ambassador and others about this matter; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised it with the Turkish Foreign Minister; and we have had other high-level contacts with the Turkish Government to reinforce the point.

Arab-Israel Dispute

Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to resolve the Arab-Israel dispute.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already said, the eighth round of bilateral negotiations ended in Washington on 16 December. Slow progress continues, and the next round is expected to take place in February. Recent events, including the killing of Sergeant-Major Toledano and the deportation of 415 Palestinians from the occupied territories, underline the fact that the peace process is the only way to resolve the problems of the region.

Mr. Madel: As Mr. Rabin has offered to make concessions over the future of the Golan Heights—the first time Israel has made such an offer—will the Government press Syria to respond positively to this genuine move towards peace?

Mr. Hogg: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the election of Mr. Rabin opens the prospect of really promising negotiations such as we have not seen previously. Prime Minister Rabin's statement on the question of the Golan Heights is important and much to be welcomed. I should like to see the Government of Syria respond by recognising the need for a permanent peace agreement with the state of Israel.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister accept that the middle east peace talks will always be vulnerable when the Israeli Government over-react, as they have on this occasion by deporting 415 Palestinians? The peace talks will continue to be vulnerable unless and until the Israeli Government believe that serious international action will be taken against them when they violate international law. The Israeli Government have clearly broken international law and 415 Palestinians are somewhere between Lebanon and Israel, yet Israel is still allowed to participate in international organisations, there is still bilateral trade between ourselves and Israel, and there is still contact between Israel and the EC. Only when Israel believes that serious retaliation will be taken will the middle east peace talks get on stream and be protected.

Mr. Hogg: The British Government have made their position plain on the deportation of the 415 Palestinians. Clearly, it was a serious breach of the fourth Geneva convention and is a serious infringement of human rights. As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House know, we have condemned it in many ways. We now need to find ways to persuade, induce and cause the Israeli Government to reverse the effect of their decision—a decision which we greatly deplore.

Mr. Rathbone: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in pursuance of what he has just said, it might be useful carefully to review the access that Israel has been given to the European Community and the help that it receives from the Community?

Mr. Hogg: We must consider how most effectively we can persuade the Israelis to reverse the effect of their decision—a decision which we deeply deplore.

Mr. Galloway: Does not the Minister understand the dynamics that lie behind the process that has led hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under occupation and in exile to look towards the Islamic extremists of Hamas? Do the Government understand that the failure of the secular nationalist leadership of the Palestinian people to obtain any significant concession has led to that radicalisation and Islamicisation of the whole national consciousness in Palestine? Does the Minister realise that, for example, the British Government's refusal to meet leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation when they were recently in London strengthens the arm of the extremists in that regard? The alacrity with which they are preparing to pulverise the Iraqis, while allowing the Bosnian Muslims to be massacred in Yugoslavia, does not help either.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is simply not correct to suggest that the Israeli Government have made no movement since the election of Prime Minister Rabin. The change that has taken place with regard to the settlement policy, for instance, is an important step forward, although it may not go far enough. We must push forward on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338, and recognise that

the Palestinian people have a right to self determination and to land to make a reality of that self determination. That is our policy and we shall keep with it.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend aceept that the greatest threat to peace in the middle east comes from Saddam Hussein, and any action that is taken against him is in the interests both of the people of Iraq and of peace in that troubled region?

Mr. Hogg: There are a number of threats to peace in the middle east and Saddam Hussein is one of the most prominent. However, it is also important that we do what we can to promote an agreement between the state of Israel, the peoples of the occupied territories and the Arab states.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Minister recognise that we deplore the Israeli Government's actions, which are in clear breach of international law and the fourth Geneva convention? I regret having to say that, as I warmly welcomed the election of a new Labour Government in Israel. Is it not clear that that breach of international law has given Hamas a huge propaganda victory?
Is it not also clear that the actions of the Israeli Government have undermined the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian people in Israel, too? Do not both those things militate against a successful outcome to the continuing peace initiative which we strongly support? Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the Israeli ambassador, as I did yesterday, that his Government should be obliged, in line with the decisions of the United Nations and the condemnation internationally, to rethink this decision and to treat these people using the proper legal procedures to which they are entitled?

Mr. Hogg: I think that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I welcome his statement. Yes, the action by the Israeli Government is deeply to be deplored, it is illegal and it is contrary to the fourth Geneva convention. Yes, too, it is a recruiting sergeant for people in the occupied territories to join Hamas. It makes martyrs of them. It is a terrible thing to have done. Yes, I entirely agree that it undermines the peace process. What we must all seriously hope is that it does not destroy the peace process and, in so far as any of us has influence in this matter, we must try to keep the peace process alive.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has rightly called for pressure to be mixed with persuasion in the case of Serbia. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is also appropriate for Israel?

Mr. Hogg: I think that I have said all I can usefully say on this matter. There has been a serious breach of international law by Israel. That breach of international law has been roundly condemned by, for example, the United Nations and by the British Government. What we now need to do is, first, to get the Government of Israel to reverse the effect of their policy, and secondly, to exercise our best efforts to keep the peace process alive.

Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for the staff establishments of British overseas posts of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodlad: It is too soon to assess the affect of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill on staffing establishments at British posts abroad, but, as the removal of appeal rights does not imply any change in the criteria under which visit visa applications are considered, it is likely to be limited. Staffing establishments are primarily determined by the number of applications for visas.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister understand that a growing number of people, including British entry clearance officers, recognise that clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill represents a serious denial of natural justice? Does he also accept that if genuine visitors, those who wish to come here to share in joy and grief with their relatives and friends, often in emergencies, are denied those visits, he and other Foreign Office Ministers will be deluged with requests to intervene from hon. Members? I hope very much that he will be prepared to offer us his private telephone number for telephone calls at weekends, over public holidays and during parliamentary recesses, because I suspect that a very large number of such requests will be made if this ridiculous clause becomes law.

Mr. Goodlad: No such reservations have been expressed to me or to my colleagues by entry clearance officers. Applicants will he given every opportunity as before to present their case, and applications will not be considered any less thoroughly than at present. There will be no change in the criteria used to assess applications. Entry clearance officers are under a duty to act fairly and will continue to do so.

Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that a number of my constituents, with families in Bangladesh, particularly in Derby, have an interest in this question? Will he consider, if he has any problems with a shortage of trained officers accustomed to dealing with passports, immigration and the like, making far better use of the staff who currently waste travellers' time, particularly on the cross-channel ferries, insisting on seeing all our passports? Surely there must be a better way, if we are serious about chasing illegal immigrants and about helping the small number of genuine asylum-seekers, than having these officers spend hundreds of hours of publicly paid time sitting on their backsides on the cross-channel ferries?

Mr Goodlad: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in such matters and she has made an interesting suggestion.

EC Foreign and Security Policy

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be attending a meeting of the EC foreign affairs troika to discuss the future of EC common foreign and security policy.

Mr. Hurd: The 12 Foreign Ministers meet Lord Owen in Paris this evening to discuss events in the former Yugoslavia as part of the continuing co-operation beteen Governments on a number of foreign and security issues.

Mr. Gapes: When the Foreign Secretary meets his colleagues will he draw any lessons from the failure of the Western European Union to impose effective sanctions to stop oil reaching Serbia, as it has during recent months? Will he, from that experience, draw lessons about the role of the WEU assembly—the putative defence arm of the European Community? Will he also discuss with his colleagues the contingency plans to be put into operation if military action is taken in the next few weeks? If that happens, the WEU will be evacuating the humanitarian forces who will be the meat in the sandwich—inadequately protected and vulnerable to attacks from Serbs and others as a result of retaliation.

Mr. Hurd: We believe that oil reached Serbia and Montenegro from the Adriatic before the warships on patrol there were given powers by the Security Council to stop and search. We believe that the stop and search resolution has been effective. We must now concentrate on the supplies that are still coming down the Danube, which will certainly be one of our main themes this evening, although pressure there has increased.
On the hon. Member's second point, I should make it clear—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has already done—that we do not believe that a political answer can be imposed on Bosnia by military force. That is not the purpose of having troops there, and nor will it be.

Sir Michael Marshall: What consideration does my right hon. Friend believe the troika will be able to give to the issue of common security and foreign policy in the Community in relation to the work of the proposed Assises—the new Community parliamentary Assembly? What progress has my right hon. Friend to report and what hopes does he hold for the future?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that will specifically be a matter for the troika. The CSCE has decided in principle to have a parliamentary Assembly. I have mixed feelings about that prospect, as a large number of parliamentary assemblies are already attached to different organisations, but we must wait to see how we proceed on that issue. I do not think that it is a particularly urgent matter at present.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the murderous treatment of the Bosnian Muslims by the Christian Serbs, would it not be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his fellow Foreign Ministers the dangers and implications of the reactions of the vast Islamic community throughout the whole world?

Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman says, that reaction is certainly sharp, and we have been in close touch with a number of Governments, particularly the Turkish, Saudi and Egyptian—as the hon. Gentleman knows, a meeting on that theme is being held in Dakar. We are well aware of the reaction.

European Community

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in the European Community.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): I refer my hon. Friend to the pamphlet entitled
UK Presidency of the European Communities: July-December 1992
published by Her Majesty's Government on 11 January, which summarises developments in the European Community under the United Kingdom presidency. I refer my hon. Friend also to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after the Edinburgh European Council.

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, with the introduction of the single European market, the European Community has agreed that 24 mecu should be made available to assist customs clearance brokers and freight forwarders—many of whom work and live in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every effort is being made by the British Government to ensure that the money is made available to businesses in Great Britain for their use and that the form filling—about which many businesses are concerned—is made easier? Will he also ensure that the money is adequately distributed?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is characteristically assiduous in the defence of his constituents' interests. He asks about the regulation which will enable the Community to assist in areas hardest hit by the regulation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is co-ordinating that effort. I know that my hon. Friend is in contact with him and is working closely with the east Kent initiative which has been invited to draw up proposals on how to spend that money in Kent for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and the companies that are affected in his constituency.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Since the conclusion of the British presidency, has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary come across any other Foreign Ministers or Government leaders of the other member states who agree with the description given by the Prime Minister when he reported on the Edinburgh summit of the distinction between subsidiarity as it is understood at Community level and devolution as it is understood in the United Kingdom? I cite in particular last year's speech by Chancellor Kohl whose clear view was that subsidiarity meant proper delegation of power, not just to national Parliaments but within the United Kingdom to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England.

Mr. Garel-Jones: If I may say so, it is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of subsidiarity which strikes me and many others in Europe as bizarre. Subsidiarity means distinguishing those areas which are the responsibility of nation states from areas that may be the Commission's responsibility. Once that distinction has been made, subsidiarity means that each member state should decide how those competences should be distributed within it.

Sir Peter Emery: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that in future actions and developments, major

consideration will be given to finding a solution to the problems of a GATT treaty? Has any thought been given to persuading the new American President to arrange for the fast track to be made available for settling a GATT treaty? The negotiations could fail if we do not do something fairly quickly.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I can certainly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he knows, the British presidency attaches the highest importance to finding a solution to the GATT problems. In spite of the difficulties that have been heralded recently, we hope that by the end of this month agreement can be reached which will enable us to take advantage of the fast track.

Mr. Home Robertson: Returning to subsidiarity, may I ask whether the Minister has grasped the fact that Britain is not a nation but a union of nations? Does he accept that the most significant happening at the Edinburgh summit was a demonstration by 25,000 Scots on the streets of Edinburgh demanding democracy for Scotland within Britain and within the European Community? When will the Government address the case for democratic accountability for the government of Scotland according to the principle of subsidiarity in Europe?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The Birmingham declaration made perfectly clear the interpretation of subsidiarity and it was agreed by all member states. I am sure that the House agrees that decisions made in the United Kingdom about local government, devolution and other matters should be made by this House and our sovereign Parliament and not by Brussels or anywhere else.

Tibet

Mr. Trend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about human rights in Tibet.

Mr. Goodlad: We remain very concerned over reports of human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China, and Ministers have made our concerns clear to the Chinese at a high level both in public and in private on many occasions. My noble and learned Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon who visited China from 1 to 7 December will in due course submit a formal report on his visit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That report will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Trend: In view of the appalling human rights record in Tibet, will the Government use their good offices and best endeavours to encourage direct negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Tibetans on the basis—and this is the heart of the matter—that there be no pre-conditions on either side?

Mr. Goodlad: The present position, as we understand it, is that the Chinese have offered to talk to the Dalai Lama about Tibet but have set certain conditions. The Dalai Lama has in the past responded positively to the principle of talks, but was not happy with some of the conditions. Although there have been reports in the media of subsequent talks, we believe that the impasse has still to be resolved. We believe that dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people offers the best hope for a solution to the problem of Tibet. We shall continue to encourage both sides in this process. We are strongly in


favour of the principle of talks without preconditions. We have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to get into a real dialogue with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama. We reminded the Chinese embassy of our position only yesterday.

Dr. Godman: The continuing Chinese violations of Tibetan human rights are surely made worse by the Chinese Government's policy of moving hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens into the very heart of Tibet. Does the Minister agree that that policy of mass migration has as its objective the systematic destruction of the culture of the Tibetan people? When will the Government stand up to the ancient men in Beijing and tell them to stop these horrible violations of the rights of the peaceable and peaceful people of Tibet?

Mr. Goodlad: We are not in a position to confirm the accuracy of the reports alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. We are, however, as I have repeatedly said, deeply concerned about reports of widespread human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China. We have raised the issue with senior Chinese leaders on several occasions in recent months.
Human rights are a central issue in our bilateral relations with the Chinese and are on the agenda of every ministerial meeting. We and our EC partners will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to adhere to internationally recognised standards of behaviour and to improve their record on human rights. My right hon. noble and learned Friend has, as I have said, recently led a mission to China as an earnest of our hope that, in particular, legal protection of the individual can be improved.

Kuwait Border (Iraqi Violations)

Mr. George Robertson: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Iraq-Kuwait border.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of violations by the Iraqis of the border with Kuwait. The United Nations Secretary-General reported on 10 January that, on that morning, a party of some 200 Iraqis with trucks and heavy loading equipment forced entry into six ammunition bunkers in a former Iraqi naval base at Umm Qasr on Kuwaiti territory and took away most of their contents, including four anti-ship Silkworm missiles. Later that day, 500 Iraqis continued to dismantle prefabricated buildings in the former naval base. Similar violations have continued until today.
The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that these activities were in violation of the procedures established by the Security Council. The Security Council responded on 11 January with a statement condemning the action taken by Iraq which constituted further material breaches of Security Council resolution 687, which established the formal ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war.
The council demanded that Iraq co-operate fully with the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission—UNIKOM—and warned Iraq of the serious consequences that would flow from continued defiance. We hope that Iraq will not miscalculate, that the violations of the border will cease immediately, as will other Iraqi provocations, and that Iraq will comply with all United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Robertson: We fully understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot be here but has to be in Brussels this evening.
Is the Minister aware that there is wide international agreement that the conduct of President Saddam Hussein in the last few days has been designed as a deliberate and calculated provocation by a despicable regime, which calls in one breath for constructive dialogue and with the next says that it will recover Kuwait again? Is he further aware that there is no question but that Saddam Hussein must comply with the provisions of the United Nations Security Council resolutions that formed the basis for the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war?
I assure the Minister that the good reasons for implementing the two air exclusion zones over northern and southern Iraq—protection from Saddam's genocidal attacks on the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south—remain as valid as they ever were. The imposition of the two air exclusion zones was supported by the Opposition in order to save many lives which were and are still in danger, and for that same reason we shall continue to support the air exclusion zones and their enforcement.
I welcome the assurance that the Foreign Secretary gave the House earlier today—that whatever necessary military action is taken will be taken in accordance with international law. I also strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he will keep the House fully

informed of all developments, because that is an assurance which is of extreme importance to hon. Members from both sides.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He is right: Saddam Hussein must comply with the Security Council resolutions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the no-fly zones. He is right to say that Iraq must not infringe the zones.
I can give the assurance once again that any action that may be contemplated at any stage by any party would proceed in accordance with international law. I can also assure the House once again that any material acts of any kind will be reported to the House.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: Everybody supports action against Saddam Hussein to make sure that he complies with United Nations resolutions, but will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action is taken with the agreement and support of our Arab allies in the Gulf war?

Mr. Hogg: It is very important that our Arab allies should support any action that the international community might deem appropriate; that is why it is important that any appropriate action should proceed in accordance with international law.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister agree that it is not just border incursions but the deployment of anti-aircraft missiles in southern Iraq and the interference with the United Nations arms inspection teams' rights to fly into Baghdad which mount up to a worrying picture? Is it not necessary to remind Saddam Hussein that he finds himself in the position that he does today only because of his invasion of a neighbouring member state of the United Nations?
In view of the disturbing report this morning by Saddam Hussein's press officer in an Iraqi newspaper that Iraq intends to "retake Kuwait", is it not important that the Government enjoy cross-party support in the House for whatever action they take in an international context against Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for the remarks that have already been made this afternoon. I agree with the great importance of proceeding in accordance with international law and maintaining cross-House agreement. It also needs to be said that the violations that the right hon. Gentleman has described amount to a pattern of conduct which must be deeply deplored.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no United Nations aid has reached the south of Iraq for many months, nor are there any plans for it to be sent, and that the recent meagre aid flows to the Kurds in the north were fire-bombed and have now ceased completely? Therefore, does he agree that the memorandum of understanding and the United Nations' plans to send food to the south and the north are in rags and tatters and that nothing save intervention on the ground will save millions of people in the north and hundreds of thousands in the south from death by starvation this winter?

Mr. Hogg: As the House is well aware, my hon. Friend has been deeply involved in trying to take assistance to the people of south Iraq. She deserves all our praise.
The suffering in south Iraq, especially among the Shia people, is one of the reasons why it was thought right to impose a no-fly zone south of parallel 32.

Mr. David Winnick: Has not the ceasefire agreement been systematically broken over the past two years, ever since it was signed by Iraq's criminal regime? Saddam Hussein has taken every possible opportunity to test and tease the allies.
I understand the difficulties that arose when the war of aggression against Kuwait was decisively defeated; but does not the Minister appreciate that many people—probably not least those in Iraq—are asking why the allies did not take the opportunity of ending once and for all the bloodstained tyranny that has been responsible For so many deaths and tortures in Iraq, and for all that has occurred since the invasion of Kuwait?

Mr. Hogg: I well understand why people ask on occasion why Saddam Hussein was not removed at the end of the Gulf war. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, however, that we were part of a coalition acting under the authority of the United Nations, for the purposes authorised by the Security Council and none other. Had we tried to go beyond the scope of those authorised purposes, the coalition would have fallen apart—and, incidentally, Ministers would have betrayed the word that they gave hon. Members in the House.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein has won every move on the board? He is still in power, and he is still mocking all the western countries and treating them as a laughing stock.
What worries me particularly is the fact that, for some years, one of my constituents has been waiting for compensation for the death of her husband in Baghdad. There has been no movement whatever. The United Nations compensation committee has agreed that she should receive compensation, but Saddam Hussein simply refuses to sell oil for that purpose. Is it not time that he was taught a fundamental lesson in keeping his word? Should we not go in and do exactly what the United Nations has recommended, instead of playing what amounts to a game of draughts with him? Is it not time for firm action?

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's observation that Saddam Hussein has won every game on the board. He has not. He invaded Iran; he lost that war, and tens of thousands of his people were killed. He invaded Kuwait; he lost that war too, and again tens of thousands of his people were killed. His country is now in a state of ruin. That is not winning every game on the board.

Mr. John McWilliam: The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was disingenuous, to say the least. Hostilities ceased because of American domestic political opinion, not because our forces would have been acting beyond the constraint of the United Nations resolution; and the Republican Guard army units just north of our forces should have been taken out.
Will the Minister tell us which idiot left those Silkworms where they are? They pose a real threat.

Mr. Hogg: I was responding to a specific question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)— whether we should in some way have deprived Saddam Hussein of the leadership of Iraq. My point was that we were acting within the authority given to us by the Security Council; we could not go outside that authority without the coalition falling apart, and without Ministers having misled the House in previous statements.

Sir George Gardiner: I refer to my right hon. and learned Friend's comment about the need to maintain the coalition at the end of the Gulf war. Will he give a further assurance that, if counter-action against Saddam Hussein is authorised, at least he will do his level best to ensure that this time the effort does not fall short of the objectives to be achieved?

Mr. Hogg: We shall proceed, in anything we do, in accordance with the principles of international law.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does not the Government more strenuously support the Iraqi opposition abroad, and in particular the Iraqi National Congress? Should not moneys owned by the Iraqi Government in the form of assets abroad be defrozen in part and handed to the INC to promote its internal campaigning in Iraq and to give it credibility in Baghdad?

Mr. Hogg: We have done various things to encourage the Iraqi opposition. We welcome the fact that a broad-based opposition is developing because that provides the people of Iraq with an alternative. As to compensation and assets, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting proposal that has not yet been advanced. I can see two obvious difficulties. It would be a clear breach of the Security Council resolution freezing those assets, and there is a whole range of other claims on them. However I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point, as I do on all his points.

Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. and learned Friend held any discussions with the Kuwaiti Government, and will he confirm that it is no use the international community extending threats to Saddam Hussein, but that it must publicly be seen to be prepared to act?

Mr. Hogg: Discussions with the Kuwaiti Government have continued over many months, and will naturally continue. As to Iraq's violations of Kuwait, it is important for us to say that Iraq must comply with the Security Council resolutions and cease its violations of the no-fly zone—otherwise it will be exposed to great risk.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Count some of us out of the so-called all-party, cross-party agreement. Why is it that Al Ahram and the rest of the authoritative Egyptian press are against military action? Was not the Foreign Secretary's candid answer—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well—to my question on Egyptian and Bahraini support a blunt "No"? They do not support us in military action in the circumstances.

Mr. Hogg: One interesting aspect of the Security Council discussion and of the debate about Iraq generally is the broad consensus in support of the proposition that Saddam Hussein must comply with Security Council


resolutions and cease to infringe the no-fly zones. There is very broad agreement for the proposition that, if Iraq does not do those things, it faces serious consequences.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)— that Saddam Hussein has twice been severely defeated in the battlefield recently, but why do we continue to permit him to turn military defeat into propaganda victory? What steps are the Government taking in the Security Council to obtain its authority to take action to stop once and for all Saddam Hussein's retreat and cheat tactics?

Mr. Hogg: The best thing we can do to deflate Saddam Hussein's reputation is to explain the facts. They point to continued and dramatic failure—loss of the war against Iran, loss of the war in Kuwait, and a total destruction of Iraq's economy. That pattern of failure has seldom been surpassed.

Mr. George Galloway: rose—

Madam Speaker: Mr. George Gardiner—I mean Mr. George Galloway.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is much better looking.

Madam Speaker: My apologies all round.

Mr. Galloway: Notwithstanding the consensus that exists across the Front Benches, I must say—like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—that, whatever bloody act has been planned, it will not be done in my name, in the name of many people in this country or in the name of many members of the coalition that fought the Gulf war only a couple of years ago. Does not the Minister understand that, in the Islamic world and elsewhere, the new coalition is regarded as a bunch of bloody hypocrites? They are ready to pulverise Iraq for its transgressions against international agreements, yet stand

by and watch while Israel—which for nearly 40 years has been breaking every international law in the book—expels, imprisons, tortures and kills people in occupied territories every day of the week; and they do absolutely nothing while Bosnian Muslims are massacred in the centre of Europe. They will be seen as a bunch of hypocrites and will receive the response from the international community that they deserve.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman's threat that he will be unable to support any action that we may have in mind is a threat that can be borne with equanimity.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Given that, sadly, my right hon. Friend has unfinished business still to be accomplished, will he ensure that, rather than concentrating on the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, Her Majesty's Government and their western allies will concentrate on creating an effective no-go zone for Iraqi troops on the ground in neighbouring Kuwait? Will he also ensure that any further incursions into Kuwait by Iraqi forces or civilians will not go unpunished—because, if they do, Saddam Hussein will be further emboldened to defy international opinion and international law and to commit further acts of aggression?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to the private notice question that the Secretary-General is of the opinion that what has happened in Kuwait constitutes a serious breach of the relevant procedures. In answer to his question, let me make it plain that Iraq must comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and must cease to infringe the no-fly zone. If she does not, she faces very serious consequences.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As some sort of military response on the part of the Gulf war coalition seems more and more probable, can the Minister comment on reports that, this time round, the use of airfields in Turkey will be denied to the coalition forces?

Mr. Hogg: I do not wish to speculate about matters of that kind.

Points of Order

Mr. John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have already given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order concerning a Scottish Office memorandum sent by the parliamentary clerk to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). The parliamentary clerk informed the hon. Gentleman that he would be tabling a question for him on transport subsidies of the "good news" type, saying that it should not present him with any difficulties. The answer duly appeared at column 466 of Hansard of 17 December. The parliamentary question's signature was indistinct.
Having referred to earlier instances in Hansard, I know that former Speakers have taken a very serious view of such matters. For example, Hansard of 20 November 1975 refers to a similar incident involving two former Members—George Cunningham and Jeremy Thorpe. On that occasion, the Speaker was unequivocal in his statement that no Member can table a Question for another Member unless he has the agreement of that Member—in other words, unless that second Member wishes the Question to be tabled.
In this case, it was a civil servant who tabled the Question. That is completely against the rules of the House and also against the civil service compromise, being in pursuit of the objectives not of the Government but of political masters. Given that disgraceful state of affairs, I am referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. But, more than anything, I seek your view and your guidance, Madam Speaker, on what should be done to ensure that hon. Members are protected and the integrity of the House is maintained.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has raised what is potentially a very serious matter. I should like an opportunity further to examine the circumstances, after which I shall give a considered ruling.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the problems we face in Tayside with the weather. You will also be aware that I made an application under Standing Order No. 20. Can you tell me whether I did anything that was out of order? If so, can you tell me how I can go about changing my ways?

Madam Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman did was in order. He also knows that I seriously consider such matters, and I give no reasons for my decision. I know that he will not press me.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a serious aspect to the point raised. Has the Secretary of State for Social Security informed you whether he intends to come to the House to make a statement on the very severe weather conditions which have affected Scotland and many other parts of Britain in the past few days, leaving many elderly and infirm people trapped in their homes—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not argue the case with me. I can answer him and the whole House: no Minister has informed me that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As part of the changed ways of the House, brought about by Mr. Speaker Weatherill but not practised by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd and many of his predecessors, one could make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the unsatisfactory nature of a statement in answer to a private notice question or questions themselves.
Against that background, I should like to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the imminent military action to be taken against Iraq. The House will know that there are deep issues as to whether the Gulf allies, especially Egypt and Bahrain, have in any way—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me put this to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise him regularly in the House which allows him to put across his opinion. I value that, and I know that he values it. However, he cannot now argue the case with me again. No new facts have arisen whereby he can now make an application under Standing Order No. 20. He made such an application earlier today which I could not hear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept what I have to say.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it further to the point of order?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, and there is also a point of principle. We cannot know whether ministerial answers will be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In the case of the Foreign Secretary, a number of my hon. Friends gasped at the answer that he gave to a factual question. We could not know that the Secretary of State would not answer the question about Egypt and Bahrain, but evade it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the policy with me. New factors must arise before I can allow an application to be made under Standing Order No. 20. New factors have not arisen, and the hon. Gentleman cannot argue the matter with me now. He can make an application under Standing Order No. 20 tomorrow or at any other time, but not now.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: No, there is nothing further to that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Further to the point of order on the weather conditions in Scotland, Madam Speaker. I refer to the issue of applications made under Standing Order No. 20 and the allocation of them. You will appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was not the only hon. Member to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 today and to have his application rejected.
When severe weather conditions prevailed in London and the south of England some two years ago, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security gave contradictory statements daily in the House until new regulations were tabled—a minor improvement. Many of us who represent Scottish constituencies now face the position in which many of our pensioners and disabled—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is trying my patience. I have already dealt with that matter. She put in


a Standing Order No. 20 application to me earlier. She knows full well that I cannot hear it. She must not pursue the matter with me now.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the private notice question on Iraq a Conservative Member said that all Members of this House supported military action. You rightly called some Opposition Members to refute that and say that it would not be done in their name. But, of course, that did not give the opportunity to all Members of Parliament who oppose such military action, such as myself, to put it on the record that we oppose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate. I do my very best to call Members representing a variety of opinion in this House. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that President Bush has just authorised an air attack on Iraq. We have just had a statement from the Minister of State but that news was not given to us. I wonder whether exceptionally you could extend for a further period questions to the Minister so that we can find out whether the action is taken in compliance with security—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I do not have that authority.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on Standing Order No. 20. As you know, at one time—certainly when my party was in government—there were six or seven applications a day at least on some occasions. There were few days, if any, when the Conservative Opposition did not have the opportunity—unsuccessfully on most occasions—of submitting three or four applications. You were here at the time in another capacity and you were aware of that practice.
I am also aware that your predecessor made certain changes to the interpretation of the Standing Order, which presumably you also apply. May I bring it to your attention that in 1979 a debate took place on the Floor of the House on a recommendation by the then Procedure Committee that Members should not be in a position to make an application for an emergency debate? Fortunately, that recommendation was defeated. When a Back Bencher makes a Standing Order No. 20 application it usually means that you will hear it and no more. Perhaps unfortunately, it is rare that an application is successful.
May I have your guidance, Madam Speaker? Are you saying that it would be useful, perhaps before one submits an application to your office, to accept that it has become a rare occurrence even to be in a position to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20?
Although my views are diametrically opposite to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has unsuccessfully made an application, surely the subject that he wished to raise is of great significance. As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, does he not have a right like the rest of us at least to put a case to you for an emergency debate?

Madam Speaker: So long as the basic requirements of the Standing Order are met, that is perfectly in order. However, Standing Order No. 20 applications are made to me regularly by many Members every day. As Speaker, I have to determine whether the criteria are met so that the application might be heard. I read many applications every day of a working week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Government seek to make a statement tonight you will grant permission for a Minister to make a statement about any possible aggressive action by the United States, using the name of the United Nations or any other combination? Will the annunciators give adequate notice to Members that a statement will be made tonight, should the Government make a statement? In the view of many Members, they ought to make a statement.

Madam Speaker: That is somewhat hypothetical at this stage, but as usual I will look extremely carefully at any request that is made to me at any time. We must now proceed.

BILLS PRESENTED

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Phil Gallie presented a Bill to amend section 23(2) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in relation to certain planning certificates: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION (COSMETICS)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Don Dixon, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Norman Hogg, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Thomas Graham, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITIONS ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafes, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of eighteen: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

Energy (Fair Competition)

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate unfair competition in the import, production and sale of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, electricity and other primary and secondary energy sources.
The aim of this Bill is unashamedly to save the pits and to defend coalfield communities. This is an appropriate day on which to introduce the measure as, 100 years ago today, Keir Hardie, who had been a Scottish miners' leader, met fellow socialists at the inaugural conference of the Independent Labour party. The conference was held in Bradford and at that time Keir Hardie was editor of the paper that he had founded, which was appropriately named "The Miner". By 1893, Hardie was already a Member of Parliament and was fighting the cause of the unemployed. My Bill is directed at preventing further unemployment today, and is, I hope, in the tradition of that great Labour pioneer.
The need for my Bill arises because of the Government's failure even to debate in the House the threatened pit closure programme. All that we have heard from the Government is a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 19 October, almost three months ago. It has been left to the Opposition to raise the issue, through an Opposition day debate, through initiatives by Members at Question Time, and on an earlier ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). Otherwise, the pit closure issue has emerged only through the invaluable work undertaken by the Select Committees on Trade and Industry and on Employment.
Deep-mined coal faces a crazy situation. Mines are breaking productivity records, yet a fixed and fiddled energy market denies British Coal the opening to sell sufficient of its highly efficient production. The Bill will unfix the fix against the coal industry. It is a fix to guarantee sales to uncompetitive producers in the nuclear power industry and gas-fired power stations, while electricity is also being unfairly imported through a French interconnector and dumped imports of foreign coal, and through orimulsion, which has a high sulphur content.
Under the legislation to establish electricity privatisation, regional electricity companies are obliged to purchase a slice of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. In practice, such purchases come overwhelmingly from nuclear power. In addition, there is an 11 per cent. levy on electricity supplied to consumers from fossil fuel generation. Under the arrangement, nuclear power generation is subsidised to the tune of £1.3 billion per year and it is set to remain in place until 1998. The subsidy is being used to extend the lives of the obsolete Magnox stations and for the construction of Sizewell B.
The Bill will offer the Government two options: either the nuclear levy will be abolished and assistance be provided only to the nuclear industry for decommissioning projects, which will lead to the closure of the high-cost Magnox power stations and create a market for between 7 and 8 million tonnes a year, or the coal industry will have to receive the same subsidy as the nuclear industry—a move that would lead to a dramatic growth of export revenues for our home production and stimulate growth in the British economy.
Gas-fired stations are being built independently of National Power and PowerGen. Their new capacity would displace 30 million tonnes of coal a year. In the main, the gas-fired stations have important links with the regional electricity companies—often through an equity stake. Those stations have already secured or intend to secure long-term sweetheart contracts with their regional electricity companies. Those contracts will usually last up to 15 years.
The link between the electricity producer and the supplier makes economic sense to the regional electricity companies, but not to the customers. The new gas-fired stations wil be more expensive than the existing coal-fired ones. My Bill would halt that economic madness by suspending long-term contracts for those gas-fired stations and by obliging them to sell their electricity in open competition. As a result, some 20 projects in the pipeline would probably be dropped, and gas burn would be reduced at other stations. That would also preserve United Kingdom reserves which would otherwise be dangerously depleted.
There is a two-way link between the national grid and France, but, in practice, it has become a one-way system for the import of French electricity to Britain. That has occurred in part because of the competitive advantage given to French electricity by the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales. The current contract with the French expires in March 1993, and my Bill is designed to prevent it from being renewed. That would create a market for 7 million tonnes of coal a year.
It would be of little competitive advantage to the deep-mined coal industry of Britain, however, if its potential sales were mainly picked up through further coal imports and the expansion of opencast production. There is evidence that coal imported into the European Community, including the United Kingdom, is being exported at prices below those at which such coal would be sold on its domestic market, and below its production cost.
My Bill would therefore ban the import of coal into Britain unless it could be proven not to be dumped here. Certified and checkable claims would have to be issued for the place of origin of that coal, its home market price and the cost of production. Furthermore, my Bill would require action by Britain, through the European Commission, to seek to extend that practice into other member states. For instance, 95 per cent. of Danish electricity is produced from coal that is currently imported from Colombia, but that contract is shortly to be transferred to South Africa.
The opencast coal potential in Britain is massive. The remaining pits in Derbyshire are threatened with closure, but the area is in danger of being swamped by opencast mining, which would result in massive social and environmental costs. Opencast mining, however, occupies a uniquely privileged position in the United Kingdom planning system. Mining planning guidance note 3—MPG 3—provides presumptions in favour of such planning applications and inhibits the work of local authorities seeking to act on behalf of their communities' interests.
My Bill would abolish MPG 3. Stricter conditions would be laid down for opencast applications, to include the distance of the sites from communities and the need for rail links for the movement of coal from those mines. My Bill would contain a formula to ensure the guaranteed life of all existing pits, which would ensure that commercial practices and delegated legislation are not subsequently


introduced to defeat its effects. That formula would be based on an assessment of the size and extraction rate of coal reserves.
I seek leave to bring in the Bill, the exact drafting of which I am still prepared to discuss with the President of the Board of Trade, given that I have now beaten him to the task.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Bob Cryer.

ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION)

Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to eliminate unfair competition in the import, production and sale of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, electricity and other primary and secondary energy sources: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 2 December]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The first amendment to be selected is No. 40.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that when, in Committee, there arises a problem relating to a matter outside the Committee—particularly if it has arisen since the Committee last met—it is within the power of the Chair to accept a motion for the adjournment of debate so that matters may be clarified. I understand that the equivalent procedure on the Floor of the House follows virtually the same criteria, but that a Member moves that the Chairman report progress. I ask you, Sir, to allow me to move that motion.
Since we last met, there have been events that I suggest require clarification and a response from the Government before proper consideration of the Bill can be continued. We are glad to see the Minister of State here, and I emphasise that the prospect of his disappearance is not the reason for my request. Nor is it the failure of the Attorney-General, who owes me a letter, to put in an appearance. The reasón for my request is the decision, taken at the Edinburgh summit meeting, in relation to Denmark and the statement about it that the Prime Minister made in the House on 14 December.
There is some doubt about the status of this decision. Some people say that it is a treaty; some say that it is not. Some say that, in practice, it amends the treaty that we are discussing; some say that it does nothing of the sort, that it affects only Denmark. Some say that it can be justiciable in international law—as, indeed, the Prime Minister has claimed; others are presenting papers, which I believe are well known to hon. Members, indicating that it cannot. Some say that it can be binding on the parties; others say that it cannot, as only seven members of the European Communities are actually bound by the rules of the International Court of Justice.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, to whose comments I have been listening attentively. He is seeking clarification on a number of political points, and I understand his desire for such clarification. He keeps using the words "there is some doubt". I am sure that, as he did not manage to catch my eye on either of the previous two days of debate, he will wish to do so today. He may well wish to weave into his speech some of the doubts and points of clarification to which he has been referring.
However, I cannot at this stage accept a debate on political points. In case any hon. Member may have forgotten over the Christmas recess, I must emphasise that this Bill does not ratify the treaty; it makes changes in


domestic law consequential upon the treaty. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition for a dilatory motion.

Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wish to seek clarification on two procedural points. First, shall we, during this Committee stage, follow the normal procedure whereby hon. Members are entitled to speak more than once on any amendment? Secondly, bearing in mind the fact that our proceedings are likely to last for many weeks and that we have other duties, which cannot be completely abandoned, will it be acceptable for hon. Members to leave the Chamber during the discussion and return still hoping to catch your eye?

The Chairman: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is yes and the answer to the second point is that it depends on how many hon. Members wish to catch my eye and for how long they speak.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. A problem will arise in the debate that we are about to have, which covers titles II to IV. I remind you and the House of the words used to define titles II to IV in the Bill:
Titles II, III and IV of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992, together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles, and the Protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date".
Twice in those words reference is made to the date of 7 February 1992, but, since that date and particularly in December, additional points were made on issues that fall within titles II and IV.
For example, within title II, the issue and definition of citizenship arise. However, at the December summit, Ministers made a further decision on refining, or at least stating and supplementing, the provisions in the treaty on the question of citizenship. It is section A of the citizenship provision in the Danish decision. That is part and parcel of the provisional articles which will fall within the compass of this debate yet will be additional to it.
Reference is also made, in section B of the Danish decision, to economic and monetary union, which again falls within the scope of today's debate, within titles II to IV. They, too, are a supplement to the treaty.

The Chairman: Order. I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. He must accept that I have done a little preparation for this afternoon's debate. The issues under titles II to IV are very broad, and I expect —although I do not encourage—hon. Members to hold a broad debate. They will want to seek clarification of various issues. I think that allusions to the two points that the hon. Gentleman raised would be in order this afternoon if he can catch my eye.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Varioius decisions have come about fairly recently in Europe. One has to do with the cohesion or slush fund in terms of the contribution which this country will have to make following the Edinburgh summit. Another is to do with the special provisions made for Denmark. With regard to Denmark, there is a question about whether this is justiciable. A further question relates to how subsidiarity will be incorporated into law.
On all those issues, points will be made during the debate, and we shall no doubt get answers from the Government. They will give their best answers as a result of their best endeavours, but decisions on all those issues

are made by bodies outside the House, outside the Government and outside the country. Decisions on the budget will be made by the Commission—

The Chairman: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair? There is none, is there?

Mr. Marlow: Yes, there is.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Marlow: Bunches of people outside the country will tell us what to do. Should we not ask them what they mean before debating the issue?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a colleague of mine, and I hope that he will recognise that factor. If he has had a good lunch, perhaps he will have a good supper, too.

Mr. Stuart Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wish to know how you intend to proceed with today's business. The treaty that we are debating is about the provisions that we should use to advance European integration. That was all agreed by the member states and put in the treaty document. Title II is at the heart of the treaty and it would not be unreasonable to conclude that amendment No. 40, which is the lead amendment today, is nothing short of a wrecking amendment. My point of order does not challenge—

The Chairman: Order. I would not have selected the amendment had it been a wrecking amendment.

Mr. John Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for a representative of the Treasury to comment on the expected date of the Third Reading? The matchless negotiating skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) secured that Third Reading would take place after the Danish referendum. That assumption, I think, has generally held.
It is now quite clear that there is a fragile political situation in Denmark, and no one would like to postulate whether the Prime Minister or the Government will survive. In those circumstances, should the referendum then be postponed owing to the Danish domestic situation, I wonder whether we might have confirmation from the Treasury Bench that the commitment to hold the Third Reading after the referendum date still stands.

The Chairman: That was not actually a point of order to the Chair, was it? There are business questions tomorrow, which might be a more appropriate—

Mr. Biffen: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not a matter for the Chair. It will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. It seems to me that business questions tomorrow would be a more appropriate occasion on which to ask that sort of question.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I draw to the attention of the House the statements on the tape attributed to Mr. Lawrence Eagleburger, to the effect that American forces may well attack Iraq? May I, through you, Mr. Morris, ask Ministers whether, if British forces are involved in military action and there is any American attack on Iraq, a statement will be made to the House forthwith?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that Madam Speaker has commented on that. I was in the Chamber at the time, as he was.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. With respect to a submission made last time we were sitting and the invitation that we hoped to extend to the Attorney-General to take part in our proceedings, serious questions have been raised about the validity of the decisions arrived at in Edinburgh, and they could have a bearing on the scope and title of this particular Bill.
As the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has just said, the Bill states that the treaty is the treaty signed on 7 February. If there were any serious doubts about whether or not the changes made in Edinburgh were legally binding and had effect within the framework of the treaty, we would not now be considering the same treaty as that which was signed on 7 February. I should therefore be grateful, Mr. Moris, if you could consider whether the Attorney-General might give us a clear indication on that.

The Chairman: Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You said earlier that this Bill was not a Bill to ratify the treaty but was merely to deal with the internal consequences in British domestic law of the treaty. You also suggested that it might be possible in a wide-ranging debate to deal with the decision taken at Edinburgh which was outside the framework of the European Community —taken by Heads of Government quite separately—to do with Denmark. But since the view from the Treasury Bench appears to be that the decision is outdside the treaty, that it is not an amendment of the treaty but something quite separate, do I take it that, if it is in order to refer to that decision in the present debate, it will also be in order to seek to amend the Bill to incorporate that decision?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman well knows from the previous two days of debate that I must ask hon. Members on both sides, if they wish me to consider amendments, to put them in writing. When they are received in writing, I will give the amendments detailed consideration and will hope very much to draw a conclusion on them. I also make it clear to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that I did say that the points that were raised could be alluded to and passing references made to them. I think that that is what is appropriate at the present point.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Have you had an opportunity to discuss with the Select Committee on Procedure ways in which we can make as rapid progress with the Bill as possible, in order that it can move swiftly to ratification in this country's interests? There is in general debate in the Chamber an opportunity for the Speaker to apply the 10-minute rule. Is there any way in which we can give as many hon. Members as possible the opportunity to speak in Committee? It is not normally done, I understand, but it would give an opportunity to many hon. Members.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right—there is no such thing as a ten-minute rule in Committee. I hope that even the idea of it will not be necessary.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Like many other hon. Members, I am worried about the status of the decision taken at Edinburgh and how it will affect Denmark. I think that you described the issue as a political one which could be raised and discussed in the ordinary course of events, but is it a political matter? Is it not a legal and constitutional matter, and therefore one on which, before we can proceed with a Bill that could be profoundly altered by the answer to the question, we should have a statement from the Attorney-General?

The Chairman: Hon. Members will have their own views on all such matters. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who first raised a point of order, sought clarification on a number of issues. He was perfectly right to do so, but the Chair cannot provide the answer to any of his doubts.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Bill is about changing United Kingdom domestic law. You will be aware that a unitary Parliament —set up by the Act of Union of 1707 between Scotland and England—was created to devise United Kingdom domestic law. That Act produced, among many other things, the British citizen. I trust that it will be in order to explore the implications of the effect that changes in United Kingdom law will have north of the border. Those changes will affect the original Act of 1707, which has since been amended by agreement.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. However, I think that he will have a busy time tracking the changes that have taken place between 1707 and 1992. I wish him good luck on his journey.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek to follow up in a different way the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). You said that hon. Members could consult widely and seek legal assistance. I am not sure that that is always the case. You, Sir, as the Chairman of the Committee seeking to safeguard the interests of the House—and within the House, of individual Members have recourse to considerable legal expertise. Have you, in your role as representative of Back Benchers' interests, asked your legal advisers whether the changes that took place in Edinburgh have a major bearing on the Bill?
If so, it will be totally inappropriate for the House to continue to consider a Bill that was signed on 7 February last year, despite the fact that we began discussions in Committee in December—before the Edinburgh summit. As a member of your panel, I believe that we are discussing an important constitutional, not political, issue.

The Chairman: Every point of order that is in order is important. I have made it clear that no hon. Member has precedence over another hon. Member. I do not disclose the source of my advice. As all hon. Members who have spoken so far have said, they seek clarification because they have doubts. They may have their own opinions but, with the greatest respect, the opinion of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may not be shared by all


other hon. Members. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye, raise his questions and see what answer he receives.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: No. I call Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. What will the voting procedure be under this interesting cluster arrangement that you have invented? As I understand it—

The Chairman: Order. I have not invented any cluster arrangement. I am here to assist the Committee, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that I am doing so. I have told every hon. Member that my door is open. The hon. Gentleman did not come to see me during the recess, nor has he done so since I have been back. I hope that he finds nothing to criticise in the organisation of the amendments.

Mr. Spicer: I hastily withdraw any implication of criticism in my use of the word "invention", Sir. I used it in a favourable sense, because I thought that it was an imaginative way to debate these issues. Other hon. Members may not feel the same, but I am left in some confusion about how we are to proceed with the detailed voting.
My question is factual. Am I right in thinking that, typically on each cluster, we shall vote perhaps for the closure, and then for the lead amendment, and vote on the other amendments when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill? If that is right, and as this is a short Bill, how will we know the exact point at which votes on the other amendments will occur?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is up to hon. Members to decide whether to have a vote on each lead amendment. That is not a matter for me, but I imagine that there will be votes on some lead amendments. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for the same time as I have. He will have to do some homework on when the other votes fall.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The three hon. Members who are on their feet are seeking to catch my eye again, but I suggest that it is now time to make progress on the Bill. We are anxious to hear again the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) speaking to this amendment; perhaps, later, other amendments will be moved.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman: I shall allow it, because it is the hon. Gentleman's first point of order in this series.

Mr. Skinner: I have been listening carefully. You told the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is your constituency neighbour, that he had had a heavy lunch, which implied that he had come here semi-drunk or whatever. You have just told a Tory ex-Minister—

The Chairman: Order. I have made no allegation, nor can it be inferred from what I said that any hon. Member has come in here drunk one way or the other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is an old friend, a good colleague and a close neighbour, and he knows jolly well what I meant. I am sure that he accepted the spirit in which I spoke.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who is an ex-Minister, is another hon. Friend of yours, and you have just told him to go and do his homework. I am not upset by Tories falling out like Kilkenny cats, and if you want to continue to do that, get on with it. The important issue is that you are in the Chair and have a duty to ensure that the debate is properly conducted. You should not make remarks for which you would pull up a Back Bencher. You are inciting us to say such things on many other occasions. Mind your language. You have told me to mind mine many times.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order, and it is not particularly helpful.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose—

Mr. Shore: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The Chairman: I shall take second points of order from the four hon. Members who are on their feet. I hope that they sense the feeling of hon. Members that we wish to get on with the debate.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As you will be aware, because I wrote to you about the matter, new clause 10 is to be considered in a group of amendments although it is different in style and content from all the amendments in that group. It would be helpful to the Committee and certainly to me if you were able at the appropriate time to call a separate vote on the new clause.

The Chairman: I shall consider the matter when we see how the debate is going.

Mr. Rowlands: I seek clarification of your ruling, Mr. Morris. You said that we could make a passing reference to the Danish decision, because there will be a wide-ranging debate. Does that mean that, when issues of citizenship and monetary union come to be considered in greater detail, we shall not be able to discuss the Danish decision and the decision made at the Edinburgh summit?

The Chairman: No, I did not rule that out at all.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I, too, seek clarification, Mr. Morris. You have said that a passing reference to the Danish decision will be allowed. I put it to you, with respect, that the Chair should decide whether the Danish decision is within the confines of the Bill—strictly, that decision falls outside the Maastricht treaty—or outside them. If the decision is without the confines of the Bill, we know that your natural generosity will allow a passing reference to it, but the matter should be clarified for the sake of speeches that are made at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill and on later amendments. Does the Danish decision fall within or without the Bill?

The Chairman: The Bill does not ratify the treaty.

Mr. Davies: We know that.

The Chairman: Good. It makes changes in domestic law that are consequential upon it. Those are the crunch points. Therefore, it does not fall within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek clarification of what you have just said. I think you said, "Therefore, it does not fall within the scope of the Bill." Is it your ruling that the Danish decision does not fall within the scope of the Bill?

The Chairman: That is right, but that does not mean that allusions to it cannot be made.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with whom I may make common cause later in the debate, I did not see the implication to which he referred in our previous conversation. To clarify the matter, I had lunch in the Members' Dining Room, and the only beverage that I had was coffee. It was a very good lunch.
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) with regard to the relevance of the Denmark decision and whether it comes within the Bill, you referred, Mr. Morris, to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench listening, and to their ability to comment. May I suggest that these matters are decided not by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench but by the European Court of Justice, which will make the final interpretations and decisions?
In the interests of the House, knowing what is happening and knowing what we are debating, and knowing what is in store if we pass the Bill, which is the ratification of the treaty, is it not appropriate that the House, yourself, Mr. Morris, somebody, or even the Government, should get in touch with the European Court of Justice and put the matter to them so that we know what the facts are?

The Chairman: With regret, it is certainly not possible for me to do that.

Mr. Cash: On the list of amendments that you have selected, Mr. Morris, there is the grouping which refers to a referendum. I believe—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will move amendment No. 40 and then explain why he has done so.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page I, line 9, leave out 'II'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 323, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'II'.

No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 2 on page 9 of Cm. 1934)'.

No. 17, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 138a on page 41 of Cm. 1934)'.

No. 116, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert

'(other than the following provisions set out under Article G—

Paragraph A (1)
Paragraph B (2)
Paragraph B (3)
Paragraph B (4)
Paragraph B (5)
Paragraph B (7)
Paragraph C

Paragraph D (10), (11), (12), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (22), (23), (25), (26), (27), (28), (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (37), (38—except Articles 130, I30r, 130s and Title XVII), (39), (40), (41–except Article I38e), (45), (47), (48), (49), (50), (56), (57), (60), (61), (62), (63), (67), (69), (70), (71), (79), (80), (81), (83) and (84).'.

No. 124, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(excluding Article G B on page 9 to II of Cm 1934.)'.

No. 234, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert 'except Article 138a'.

No. 91, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'III'.

No. 20, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article H on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.

No. 92, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'IV'.

No. 146, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
 'but not Article I in Title IV thereof.

No. 183, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article Q in Title VII thereof'.

No. 122, in page 1, line 10, leave out from '1992' to 'and' in line 11.

No. 117, in page 1, line 12, after 'Protocols', insert
'other than—

(a) The Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank
(b) The Protocol on the Excessive Deficit Procedure
(c) The Protocol on the Convergence Criteria referred to in Article 109 of the Treaty establishing the European Community
(d) The Protocol amending the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunity of the European Community
(e) The Protocol on the Transition to the Third Stage of Economic and Monetary Union
(f) The Protocol on Certain Provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(g) The Protocol on Social Policy
(h) The Protocol on Economic and Social Cohesion.'.

New Clause 10—Report of European Council—
'.—After the European Council has submitted its report after each of its meetings, Her Majesty's Government shall publish and lay such reports, and those annual reports in writing, as required by Title 1, Article D of the Treaty on European Union before Parliament, together with a statement as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.'.

Mr. Cash: In moving amendment No. 40 on title II, I wish to refer briefly to the implications of having a referendum. We have not had a free vote in the House, nor a White Paper. I wish to put it on the record that this is an historic decision, but not to pursue that matter until we come to the question of a referendum. It is important for people to note that there will be an opportunity for a campaign for a referendum throughout the country, which will begin on Sunday at 11.30 am in Hyde park. Having got that point across—

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I am not there? Will he bear in mind that many hon. Members believe that it is the job of the House to make difficult


decisions on a complex Bill and that that is what the true definition of parliamentary scrutiny should be? That is why we oppose a referendum.

Mr. Cash: I should have more sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said if I did not believe, as many other hon. Members and 75 per cent. of the British population believe, that the issue goes to the heart of the manner in which our parliamentary democracy is to be conducted. That is the crucial issue and that is why we seek a referendum.
I wish to refer to the recent statement of Chancellor Kohl of Germany of Monday 4 January with respect to the Edinburgh summit, which has direct relevance to the questions arising on title II. He said:
the leaders of the European Community expressed their sympathy for Denmark's special reservations, but decided not to change the Maastricht treaty. Reopening negotiations was not, and is not, on our agenda.
4.45 pm
He continued:
In Edinburgh we therefore could go no further than to clarify the relevant treaty clauses to respond to the main Danish concerns. This purely declaratory 'decision' neither changes nor complements the treaty and therefore does not require ratification by member states.
It was with that in mind that I raised the question whether the Attorney-General could or should come to the House —I believe that he should to explain to us precisely the nature of the decisions taken in Denmark. Undoubtedly there are seriously conflicting opinions. Eminent Queen's counsel believe that the Danish decision was not binding, and the view has been expressed that the matter is being dealt with by an international legal obligation outside the treaty. Indeed, that is what the Government claim.
A major question arises that turns on the nature of the legal commitment, if it be a commitment at all; I believe that it is not. This will ultimately determine the relevance of the Edinburgh summit and the decision that was taken, with vast consequences for the United Kingdom, the Danish people and Europe as a whole. We do not want the treaty ratification procedure to proceed in a state of obscurity and confusion. We want to get the thing out into the open. Accordingly, I believe that it would be important for the Attorney-General—I have written to him and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, enclosing a copy of a legal assessment that has been produced by some eminent Queen's counsel, to ask for their opinions—to clarify the matter. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend and right hon. Friend to give me their opinions in writing.

Mr. Spearing: I think that everyone agrees that this is a constitutional matter of some significance. You may recall, Mr. Morris, that we had some difficulty during a previous debate when the Minister was unable immediately to answer some of the questions that were put to him. I wrote to the Attorney-General on the Edinburgh issue on 15 December and asked him to reply before this debate took place. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) may be interested to know that I heard this morning that the Attorney-General would not be replying. I was told that a reply would come from the Minister of State, but that it was unlikely that I would receive it before this debate. I mention that to help the hon. Gentleman and the entire Committee. There are many matters that should be

clarified, and especially the views of the Government, before we proceed, because we do not know how they will affect the law of this country.

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention which helps to clarify the position.
Title II—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: Let my hon. Friend get on.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for giving way. He has obviously studied these matters in some detail. As an agreement has been reached between the Government and the Danish Government on a let-out clause that meets the Danish position, and if there is to be no change in the proposed Maastricht treaty, what is the point or validity of having a referendum in Denmark when nothing has changed since the first referendum?

Mr. Cash: That is the very matter which should be clarified. Does the present position add up to a row of beans? On one interpretation it appears that it does not. The matter must be resolved as we go forward.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that I might be able to shed some light on the matter. In his statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
The solution is binding in international law."—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 23.]
Any reference to Community law is conspicuous by its absence. Is not that the truth of the matter? It might be an international treaty, but it has no validity in Community law.

Mr. Cash: That is where the problem lies. We are talking about the ratification of a treaty. We are dealing with the future of the European Community. Title II amends the whole of the treaty of Rome over a wide range of matters which are set out from page 9 to page 60 of Cm. 1934. All those matters are affected by the legal status of the decisions that are being taken, provided that they are being taken in a proper constitutional manner that can stand up in relation to the European Community itself.
It is no good Governments and others going round, in the belief that they can cobble together decisions on pieces of paper, picking a little bit from one pigeon hole of international law and a little bit from another, nesting here and nesting there. We must know the precise impact of the treaty. The purpose of my opening with Chancellor Kohl's remarks is to illustrate the point that there is no clear understanding, even among the leaders of Europe, of precisely what was decided at Edinburgh.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to explain how, if, as we understand it, under the European Communities Act 1972, the general body of international law is excluded from consideration under Community law, the treaty can be binding in international law and binding in Community law?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend, who is a distinguished lawyer, makes yet another good point. The matter must be cleared up. We need to know the treaty's implications for Britain's domestic law in order to decide whether we have a treaty with which we can live.

Mr. Marlow: As that matter is so fundamental to the further consideration of the great issues that are at stake, will my hon. Friend, before he proceeds with his speech, put a positive, generous and pleasant invitation before the Minister to clarify the issue now so that we know where we stand?

Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that suggestion. The Minister of State, who is attentive to these matters at all times, will no doubt want to respond. I do not know whether he wishes to do so now. I see no sign of great movement to the Dispatch Box, but I hope that at least his advisers will bear in mind that we not only ask for but insist upon an answer to the question. The whole range of government of the United Kingdom is being changed dramatically by the treaty and by the provisions of title II. It is not good enough for us to be left in any uncertainty about the impact of the treaty on our domestic law. The ratification of the treaty means that we will be part of a new Community. Therefore, I invite the Minister to make a representation to us in due course, I hope before the end of the day.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is so attentive to all these matters, could we be forgiven for wondering how such a diligent colleague brought himself to vote for the Single European Act?

Mr. Cash: The answer to that is extremely simple. I believe in the European Community, it is extremely important and it should be made to work on a realistic basis. The Single European Act, through co-operation and, primarily, through its development of commercial and trading policies, was a sensible way in which to reduce barriers to trade and to increase free trade throughout Europe. The Single European Act is primarily about trading and commercial matters, but the Maastricht treaty is primarily about government.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-J ones): rose—

Mr. Cash: I shall give way to the Minister. I gather that he intends to resign, but we do not yet know whether he has.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend also support the extensions of qualified majority voting brought about by the Single European Act? Does he therefore support the principle of qualified majority voting?

Mr. Cash: I have said repeatedly that I am in favour of the notion of an increase in majority voting for specific purposes relating to co-operation in the commercial field which will enable free trade to develop within Europe and at the same time ensure that we can reduce barriers to trade. The Community originated because of difficulties in reducing protectionism. Therefore, it had a logical reason. There is no logical reason for turning over Britain's government and democracy to majority voting. That is political union. The Single European Act was a move towards greater economic union.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that has clearly emerged is that the European Court is a highly political organisation? Was it not a highly political organisation at the time of the Single European Act? Many of us thought that if we voted for any form of qualified majority voting, that procedure would be progressively

extended by the political movement of the Commission and the Court. How did my hon. Friend find himself able to support the beginnings of that most disagreeable procedure?

Mr. Cash: I am always delighted to reply to a mischievous remark by my hon. Friend. He may recall that I tabled an amendment to the Single European Act which said that nothing in the Act would derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that Mr. Enoch Powell signed that amendment because he believed that it would be a way of containing the implications of the Single European Act described by my hon. Friend. None the less, for the reasons that I have given, I thought the Act necessary to reduce the degree of protectionism.

The Chairman: Order. I imagine that the former Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. Powell, will wish to read the argument for amendment No. 40 in tomorrow's Hansard. I hope that we can now get on with amendment No. 40 so that he is not disappointed.

Mr. Cash: What does title II involve? Article G turns an economic community into a European community. That is a fundamental change. It is intended to move from the notion of an economic community to a political union. A subsequent amendment in my name deals with political parties in Europe. It is clear from the treaty—I know that many Conservative Members wish it—that European political parties should operate within a politically integrated Europe. That is what the treaty says and it is clear that the idea is for political parties to operate at a European level with a view to integration—political integration in Europe. That is why I object to the change of the words from European Economic Community to European Community. We are debating the construction of a federal treaty, the primary political impetus of which is to be at the European level, and the political parties at that level are intended to replace the national Parliaments.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that in 1972 we were told that we were joining a European Economic Community and that certain provisions would be permanent? They are no longer there. In 1985–86 we were told that the Single European Act had only certain implications and some former members of the Government believed that and supported it, but they have now changed their position. Experience tells us that things go far further than the Bill and that is why the amendments are essential.

Mr. Cash: That is right. The fact is that the single market has been severely abused. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry is now investigating that, and I hope that that will help to make the market work more effectively.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I think that my hon. Friend has let go the challenge issued from the Front Bench rather too easily. If I am not mistaken, Ministers have challenged my hon. Friend to justify his current position, bearing in mind that he voted for the Single European Act in 1986.
Surely the House is entitled to learn from its mistakes. It is clear that many hon. Members believed what they were told by Ministers at the time about the limited implications of the Single European Act. We now see that the Act goes very much further. Should not the House of


Commons, of all places—and, indeed, the Government —learn from their mistakes rather more frequently than they do?

Mr. Cash: I agree that we must all learn from our mistakes, but 1 will not change the position that I have adopted, and have held consistently.
The single market needs to be cleaned up. It has been abused, and I hope that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will be able to throw some light on the unfair practices that are causing immense damage to British industry, increasing unemployment in this country and worsening the recession.

5 pm

Mr. Marlow: Had my hon. Friend known in advance that the powers for qualified majority voting in the Single European Act would be as heavily abused by the European institutions as we have discovered them to have been, would he have voted for it?

Mr. Cash: The answer to that can be found in what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said about the activities of the European Court of Justice. Abuses should be dealt with in that court. I stand by what I said about the single market.
The provisions of article 2, which replaces the previous article 2, include a reference to
sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection".
One thing can be said for certain about the direction in which the European Community is currently going: we are emphatically not seeing a high degree of economic convergence, non-inflationary growth or a high level of employment.
The real problem is that that is a load of rubbish. The words are in the treaty, but there is absolutely no evidence that the way in which the policies are being implemented is having any effect of the kind that is desired. Unemployment in the Community has risen from about 8 million to 15 million over the past few years, and it is expected to rise further to about 30 million. The policies that are being pursued are emphatically not bringing unemployment down. Indeed, I will go further and say that the Maastricht provisions relating to economic and monetary union and to convergence are likely to impose immense pressure for more unemployment. Moreover, the capping of public spending will prevent people from benefiting from an infrastructure that would generate construction work and thus increase employment.
The provisions of article 2 are completely contradicted by what is now happening, and the position is becoming worse rather than better. That in itself is a reason for leaving out article 2. People's expectations are being raised and then dashed. How can anyone imagine that that can continue without serious disruption in Europe? It is bad for business, because it raises expectations that cannot be fulfilled: it is wrong to deceive the workers of Europe into believing that something will happen simply because of what is written on a piece of paper. That is one of my objections to article 2. It is unfair and unrealistic to mislead people in such a way.

Sir Russell Johnston: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I feel that his remarks about the clause referring to

political parties must be challenged. Presumably he does not object to the Conservative party's playing its part in a wider Conservative/Christian Democratic coalition. If he does not, what does he consider to be the purpose of such involvement?

Mr. Cash: It is clear that some form of political understanding in Europe is required, but that is perfectly achievable within the framework of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act as it stands. There is no need to go down this further route. We want to enhance the national Parliaments and improve the scrutiny process, which is now lamentable in many member states. It is for precisely such reasons that I object to the fact that all we have at the back of the Maastricht treaty is a declaration relating to national Parliaments. It is not binding in any sense. We want to improve the quality of political decision making in Europe, but the treaty will do exactly the opposite.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public spending. Many Opposition Members—perhaps the majority; I do not know—find one aspect of that very difficult to understand. How on earth can someone who argues for further public spending to deal with a high level of unemployment—whether in Britain, where it certainly exists, or elsewhere in the Community—defend or justify the maximum gross national product of 3 per cent. that is laid down in the treaty?
At least a page is devoted to the penalties that will be incurred by member countries that go beyond that limit, but no limit is set in regard to unemployment, apart from the reference mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If the treaty proceeds and such a limit is applied, it will undoubtedly bring about far more unemployment, deflation and misery throughout the Community. I do not see how any member of the Labour movement could possibly support what is being done.

Mr. Cash: That echoes many of the sentiments that I have expressed. Decisions about the allocation of economic and social priorities are currently made in the ballot box in general elections, on the basis of party manifestos, but all that will be taken away—even, in practice, under stage II, by way of gravitational pull into stage III. Under stage II, the European monetary institute will have important and greatly underestimated functions, which were criticised by a member of the Bundesbank council who wrote to me recently. He said that they had not been properly explained to the German people.
The understanding entered into about stage II will have a Profound impact on decisions made by the people who will suffer increasing unemployment. In fact, the power to make those decisions is being taken from them and given to members of the European monetary institute. The Governor of the Bank of England, sitting in the monetary institute—under article 8 of the protocol relating to it—will not be able to take instructions as currently prescribed by section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946.
The massive change taking place under stage II has been greatly underestimated. It strikes at the heart of the way in which we make decisions. Our voters, who are afflicted by the unemployment that is resulting from decisions that are already effectively being implemented, are losing the power to make their own decisions. Such


considerations lead some of us to say, in the absence of a free vote, that we must have a referendum. The people must be consulted.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my hon. Friend make available the letter from the Bundesbank official about the monetary institute and European monetary union, so that hon. Members can read it?

Mr. Cash: It is not a letter but an article, which makes it clear—

Mr. Dykes: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, he told the Committee that he had a letter from, I believe, the vice-chairman of the Bundesbank—

Mr. Charles Kennedy: No, from a member of its council.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He was presumably writing to explain why he has misgivings about the policy formulations in that particular part of the treaty. Will my hon. Friend help by making that letter —written to him, presumably—available to us all?

Mr. Cash: If any correction is required, it is contained in the document that I have, which is not a letter but which throws considerable doubt on the feeings that there were about the monetary institute and the attitudes adopted by the Bundesbank council.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's description of an article, but that is not the same as his saying—as he clearly and equivocally did just now—that he had received a letter. Presumably it was addressed to him, perhaps in response to one sent by my hon. Friend to a member of the Bundesbank council or because he had been mentioned in the press. It was clearly described as such.
I know that my hon. Friend has been in difficulties with other kinds of letters recently. I received an interim reply from Madam Speaker about an inquiry that is under way in the Serjeant at Arms office because my hon. Friend has apparently been using official envelopes to write to the constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members to tell them about anti-European meetings—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair. I am mystified as to the relationship of that point to amendment No. 40. Also, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is beginning to repeat the speech that he made before Christmas. I listened attentively then and read it carefully, and I do not really want to hear it again. I should like to hear about amendment No. 40, about which we have heard very little in the nearly half an hour that the hon. Member for Stafford has been on his feet.

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. A serious allegation has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) against my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Surely it is only right and proper, in the best traditions of the House, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford answers that serious allegation about apparent misuse of House of Commons stationery.

The Chairman: That matter is for Madam Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms and not for the Committee stage of a Bill. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members recognise that.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I point out that if I was addressing the Chair incorrectly when you called me to order, it was because I was anxious to hear an explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. If it is in order, perhaps he will respond to my latter comments—but I would particularly like an explanation about my hon. Friend's reference to the letter from a member of the Bundesbank council.

Mr. Cash: If it was misunderstood, I withdraw any suggestion that I received a letter from a member of the Bundesbank council. I make that clear. However, the article in question throws grave doubts on the basis on which the EMI was established.

The Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate that matter specifically to amendment No. 40 or to leave it aside.

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. If the time comes when a closure motion is moved in resepct of this set of amendments, will you bear in mind—

The Chairman: Order. I am not anticipating any future events. I merely want the Committee to proceed with the debate on amendment No. 40—or I hope that it will do so.

Mr. Cash: Citizenship of the union raises a fundamental question about the relationship of the voter to the Government of this country as elected at a general election. Article 8(2) states:
Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.
No specific, clear indication is given of what those duties will be. That article is therefore in the nature of a blank cheque, which presents a serious problem. If we are expected to ratify that provision without being told the nature of those duties, we are being asked to agree to something that the people of this country will not, without an explanation, be able to understand.
Title VI raises the whole question of economic and monetary policy. Its provisions present a serious difficulty in relation to the manner in which decisions are taken, to which I referred when I dealt with the European monetary institute and its relationship to the establishment of the central bank.
By creating that bank for the whole of Europe, a lethal blow is being struck at the heart of democracy for the people of Europe as a whole. We may have an opt-out, but it must be set against the provision relating to the EMI and to the transitional arrangements to which I referred earlier.
5.15 pm
An amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition seeks to leave out the whole of title III, which deals with the European Coal and Steel Community. I do not know what led to that particular provision, wide ranging though it is. However, its importance in relation to the British pit closure programme and to matters that we debated some months ago—which led to the High Court


declaring that closure programme unlawful—raises an important question in respect of the European coal and steel industry and its regulation.
I understand that a 100-year contract on very favourable terms, and backed by subsidies, has just been provided to the German coal industry, which will place a very unfair burden on our electricity users. I understand also that the European Commissioner formerly responsible for competition policy, Sir Leon Brittan, who has just changed his portfolio, approved a £3.3 billion deal between the power generators and the heavily subsidised coal industry.
Under that arrangement, which was entered into under the European coal and steel regulations, Britain is presented with a significant problem in respect of its own coal industry. A significant part of that industry, which includes the Trentham colliery in my constituency, is due for closure. It seems wholly wrong that that should have happened in the first place, and under the aegis of the European coal and steel arrangements.

Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to address the Committee on the European coal and steel industries covered by title III when right hon. and hon. Members are debating an amendment that seeks to eliminate title II?

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will note that the selection list allows for titles II and IV also to be debated. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, in that I would expect the hon. Member for Stafford to concentrate on title II, nevertheless his remarks are just in order.

Mr. Cash: When those negotiations are under way, the opportunity to sort out the problems created by unfair subsidies and unfair competition could and should have been taken.
Amendment No. 183, also in my name, refers to article Q in title VII, which prescribes that the period of the treaty shall be unlimited. The treaty itself contains no power for cessation. If it is to be "for an unlimited period", we ought to be given some indication of why, if things go wrong, we will not have an opportunity to reconsider matters.
The provisions of title II are extremely wide ranging and affect all the amendments relating to the treaty of Rome. They go to the heart of the manner in which we would be governed in Europe as a whole. They deal with questions relating to employment, public health and culture and the establishment of trans-European networks. We have been given no justification for the provisions. There has been no White Paper explaining why they have been brought forward; we have had to rely instead on occasional Select Committee hearings, and so on.
It seems to me that the entire title is unnecessary. The policies that lie behind it have not been borne out by practical experience. Britain has a massive trade deficit with the European Community—at present, about £15 billion a year. I seek an improvement in the quality of free trade within the European Community. The present proposals are unnecessary. We should be improving the European Community rather than becoming involved in the governmental matters referred to in the treaty—a move which will cause a serious loss of faith in our ability to work together and co-operate in Europe as a whole.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Labour's approach to the amendments, to the important provisions of titles II, III and IV—and, indeed, to the Bill as a whole—is to argue for European co-operation as an important dimension of our party's internationalism. For the people of Britain, as for the people of Europe, we want to see the real benefits of a positive future for the European Community.

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The second amendment in the group was tabled by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. You have quite properly called the Front-Bench spokeman. May I suggest, however, that the Opposition Front-bench spokeman cannot have an inalienable right to be called to speak immediately after the mover of an amendment and that consideration should be given to those on the Back Benches who have tabled amendments?

The Chairman: There is no inalienable right, but it seemed appropriate on this occasion that I should call the Opposition Front-Bench spokeman. I was hoping also to call the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) before long—but we shall see how we get on.

Mr. Smith: I, too, am concerned that Back Benchers should have a proper opportunity to contribute to our proceedings. It is not the length of Opposition Members' speeches that have prevented them from doing so.
We tabled amendments Nos. 11, 17 and 20 so that we might have an opportunity to present the case for a positive future for Britain in the European Community. They are probing amendments and will not be pressed to a vote.
The Labour party has made it clear how important we believe it is that the Community pursues the principles set out in article 2 of the treaty, which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) described as rubbish. So far from being rubbish, they are eminently desirable and important goals for Europe to pursue. The article is a powerful statement of the central objectives of the European Community and it is important to get that message across to the public. It states:
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common polices or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
Those important objectives, set out at the beginning of the treaty as the Community's task, set the context, legally as well as politically, within which its other provisions must be interpreted and applied. Britain would be much better off if the Government acted on the provisions of article 2, not least by giving the lead on proposals for concerted European economic recovery rather than obstructing them and watering them down.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend has listed the new requirements to be introduced into the treaty of Rome by the Maastricht treaty, which includes a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of standards of living and quality of life and so on. All those are important objectives to which Opposition Members are strongly attached. But article 3a(2) states


that the primary objective of economic policy is "to maintain price stability". That has never been an objective of the Labour party—nor, as far as I know, has it been the objective of any economic management in any country. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] That is stated as the primary objective.
The article then states that the other objectives are to be realised
without prejudice to this objective".
In other words, the paramount requirement is price stability—destructive though that is certain to be in terms of employment, jobs and economic growth.

Mr. Smith: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) endorse the objectives of article 2, which seem to me to be good enough reason to support it. My hon. Friend referred to price stability. It would be interesting to hear his arguments in favour of price instability. I have yet to see the benefits of price instability to working people and, in particular, to pensioners. There is no merit in price instability. But I know what my hon. Friend was getting at. He sought to make the important point that we should be pursuing policies which, as a whole, promote full employment, prosperity and social justice, and that the goal of price stability should not be allowed to prejudice that.

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Smith: I must make progress. I shall be happy to take further interventions later and I shall come on to refer to the details of article 3a, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred.
As I was saying, Britain would be far better off if the British Government put article 2 into effect and led forward the programme for concerted European recovery rather than obstructing it as they were doing before the Birmingham summit and at Edinburgh.
Many of the problems surrounding the treaty—we acknowledge that there are problems—arise from the way in which the Government have approached the matter. As I have said before, they are like gatecrashers entering a party backwards and assuring all around them that they are just on the way out. Britain will have paid a double price for the opt-out from the social chapter: first, there is the price to British workers, who have been disgracefully deprived of the rights that will apply in all the other member states—something that we shall seek to put right in our debates on the social chapter—and, secondly, there is the price paid in terms of the negotiating capital used by the Government to achieve the opt-out, which could have been used instead to help put Britain into the first division in Europe rather than confining it to the second.
I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to devote attention to other fears that have been expressed about the treaty—its problems and how they can be overcome—as well as its benefits. We have never made any secret of the fact that, in a number of respects, the present treaty is not the treaty that we would have sought to negotiate. It is, after all, the product of bargaining between the 12 Governments of the Community. At the time of negotiation, five of those Governments were Christian

Democrat or Conservative, four were coalitions, one was Social Democrat identifying with the Liberals and only two were Democratic Socialist. It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone that we have a number of important concerns that we shall wish to express in subsequent debates.
But with all the talk of problems, let us not forget the enormous potential benefits that can be derived both from the provisions already contained in the Bill and from the amendments that we shall seek to introduce. It is little wonder that the public grow sceptical of politicians' approach to the Maastricht treaty when they hear only of problems and wrangling and not of the potential benefits. Those benefits are derived from two important principles which are close to the hearts of Labour Members. First, international co-operation is essential for securing and preserving peace; and, secondly—this is inscribed on many of our trade union banners—unity is strength. By joining together in a union, we can secure social and economic progress which would not be achieved if we all stood apart. Those important principles are reflected in many of the provisions in the titles which are the subject of this debate.
When we examine the history of Europe and the state of the world, the value of such co-operation—rather than destructive nationalism—is more evident, whether through meditation on Remembrance day, by visits to graveyards in northern France or by seeing on television and elsewhere the appalling suffering of modern warfare.
Let none of us doubt the importance of building closer European co-operation. Let none of us forget that at the heart of the European project was the determination of European countries, especially France and Germany, never to go to war again. That is a noble aim and a worthy expression of our common humanity. Whatever the problems of Maastricht and whatever the difficulties and arguments that lie along the road to Europan union, let us not forget for one moment why it was well worth embarking on the journey in the first place.

Mr. Marlow: Government Ministers are saying that the treaty will not happen so we may as well vote for it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the treaty goes through we will get socialism in our time. I suggest that they are two fundamental reasons why all of my hon. Friends should vote against the damn thing.

Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and his hon. Friends. We have made no secret of the fact that the provisions of article 2 would stand proud in any Labour manifesto. That is why we are so strongly in favour of the principles.

Mr. Corbyn: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said about article 2 and its social objectives. Does he concede that the whole basis of the Maastricht treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability? That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom—or any other Government—would wish to carry out.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the imposition of a bankers' Europe on the people of this continent will endanger the cause of socialism in the United Kingdom


and in any other country?

Mr. Smith: It is a task of the Labour party, and Labour in government, to ensure that the process does not result in a bankers' Europe—that the concerns of bankers are not allowed to dominate the goals for social progress to which we all subscribe. Time and time again we have made it clear that we believe that decisions on such matters must be taken within a politically determined context. That presents a strong case for strengthening the role of ECOFIN in the Community.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does my hon. Friend accept that article 107 makes it absolutely clear that the European central bank will not take instructions from ECOFIN or any similar body?
On the point that article 2 would fit well in a Labour manifesto, article 2 explicitly says that it is subordinate to article 3. I wonder why my hon. Friend is focusing on article 2 rather than article 3. Article 3 makes it clear that the fundamental objective of economic policy is the control of inflation.
It was not fair for the hon. Gentleman to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that everybody wants the control of inflation. Of course, we want the control of inflation. However, it has never been the primary objective of Labour's policy that the control of inflation should be the first objective of economic policy. Therefore, articles 2 and

Mr. Smith: The reason why I am placing such stress on article 2 is precisely that the preamble of the treaty sets as the task of the Community the provision of
a high level of employment and of social protection, a raising of the standard of living and quality of life".
Through Government and European institutions, in common with our sister parties in the rest of the European Community, it is our task to ensure that the implementation of those goals takes precedence. For democratic socialists and for all of those whom we aspire to represent, there are important reasons for engaging positively in the Maastricht process.
In an increasingly international economy which has powerful transnational forces, intervention to ensure employment, better living standards, enhanced quality of life and fairness and a sustainable environment must be undertaken at the international level as well as closer to home. Participation in the European Community cannot be an add-on extra or an opt-out deduction, as the Government maintain. It is a necessary condition for economic and social progress.
With the advent of the single market and the growing integration of the European economy, the European level of economic management is essential if workers, communities and whole regions are not simply to be left at the mercy of unregulated market forces. As Labour has consistently stressed, the advent of the single market and the integration of the European Community must be accompanied by corresponding action at national and global levels. Britain will be better placed to achieve both if we work in co-operation with our European partners instead of seeking to do so in isolation.

Mr. Rowlands: An absolute condition in the process towards monetary union under the treaty is to introduce legislation to make independent our national bank. Does my hon. Friend support that principle?

Mr. Smith: If the treaty is carried, it is clear that such

matters will have to be examined. We have already made it clear that there is a case for examining the separation of the regulatory functions of the Bank of England from the responsibility for monetary policy. Of course, if a European central bank is established, every member state will need to examine the relationships between their central bank and the European bank and between the central bank and their Governments. The Labour party has tabled a further amendment about the accountability of the Bank of England.
It is crucial that a central bank remain in public ownership. It must not pass into any form of private ownership, as some have suggested. The constitution and governing council of a central bank must fully represent industrial, regional and social needs and the policies which it pursues must be carried into effect in a politically accountable context and in ways for which the institution must be held to account.

Mr. Dalyell: I am mindful that the Lothian region, the Edinburgh area and the Linlithgow constituency have greatly benefited from the sensitive understanding given by the European Community to their regional issues. Linlithgow constituency Labour party unanimously passed a resolution on Sunday which urged me to do everything possible to get the Maastricht treaty through. There are two views and there should not be the misleading impression that all the arguments are just on one side as far as Back Benchers are concerned.

Mr. Smith: Many regions, especially the region to which my hon. Friend referred, have had cause to benefit from the way in which the European Community and some of its activities have given attention to the social and economic problems in the United Kingdom. The Government have not sought to address those social and economic problems. Indeed, their policies have aggravated the problems. My hon. Friend is also right about Labour party policy, which is that the Maastricht treaty is the best available vehicle before us for securing the closer political and economic co-operation in Europe to which the Labour party is committed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman's position seems to be partial. I accept the sincerely held views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but is the Opposition spokesman saying that if the United Kingdom Government were disposed to do so, they could not do exactly what Europe has apparently done for Edinburgh and the Lothian and Linlithgow areas of Scotland? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Britain is a net contributor to the European budget and that we give far more money than we get back? If we had kept that money, some of it might well have been passed to not only the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, whose views I respect but disagree with, but perhaps to my constituency.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman effectively makes the point that the Government, of whose party he is a member, lack the political will to address the fundamental economic and social problems of Britain. That comes as no surprise. But is it not welcome that the European Community has at least been able to provide some assistance, as my hon. Friend said?

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I must make some progress.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to make some progress. I trust that that will open up more time for Back Benchers who want to speak.
Some argue that much that I have advocated, such as the value of closer economic and political co-operation and gaining control of otherwise unregulated market forces, is good. They say that we need European co-operation and even European union, but that the titles in the Maastricht Bill offer no vehicle for achieving those goals. I do not dispute that those arguments are advanced with sincerity and integrity and deserve to be listened to with respect. However, I do not find them realistic, just as the Labour party conference did not find them realistic.
I do not see how we could build some theoretical European co-operation in the future by rejecting out of hand the practical European co-operation which is available now. When I hear arguments such as those of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who said in the debate on 1 December that he favoured political co-operation within Europe and even that he had no difficulty with European union, it puts me in mind of those people—I am sure that my hon. Friends have encountered them—who say, "I am all in favour of trade unions in principle and would join the appropriate one if it was one that I liked, but I will not join the trade union my workmates are in because I do not like the rule book, the shop steward does things with which I disagree and I am not prepared to take collective action if I am outvoted."
Our position stands in stark contrast with that of the hon. Member for Stafford. He believes that the provisions of the Bill to give effect to the titles in the Maastrict treaty unreasonably limit the operation of the free market. We believe that they offer a framework which is essential if the single market is to be the servant, not the master, of workers throughout the Community. He and his friends believe that a free market in currencies is best for the economy. We believe in the principle of planned management of exchange rates.
The hon. Member for Stafford believes that common funds which seek to redistribute resources to weaker regions of the Community damage the economy. We believe that they are desperately needed for economic regeneration, social justice and common welfare. He believes that it is centralist for the Community to agree standards for terms and conditions of employment. We believe that there will be exploitation if it does not do so.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will appreciate that some of the arguments that he has just advanced about economic co-operation were the basis for the clamour for us to join the exchange rate mechanism. We know what happened. I do not for one moment question my hon. Friend's genuine sincerity. I mean that. Obviously, there is a genuine difference of opinion. Why not on such an important issue?
My hon. Friend talks about steps to reduce unemployment and all the rest. How on earth can that be justified bearing in mind article 104c, which places a strict limit of 3 per cent. of gross national product on public spending? Moreover, it sets out in considerable detail the

penalties that will be inflicted on member countries if they go beyond that limit. Surely that will simply mean that public spending will be reduced, and further reduced in many cases.
Even under the Conservative Government public spending is, fortunately, higher than 3 per cent., at least at the moment. Surely an outright reactionary right-wing Government would use the 3 per cent. rule to justify further cutting public spending. They would turn round and say, "It is all in the treaty. We have no alternative." How could unemployment be reduced in those circumstances?

Mr. Smith: I believe, and it was the view taken in the resolutions and documents passed by the Labour party conference, that within the framework provided by the treaty, it is precisely possible for us to take common action to tackle unemployment and the rundown of depressed regions as well as social inequality. But it is our task—I agree with my hon. Friend in this—to ensure that the Europe that we shape becomes an engine for economic growth, not an instrument for deflation.
My hon. Friend referred to the convergence criteria. I shall have more to say about those criteria towards the end of my speech. I hope that he will bear with me and allow me to make progress to that point.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I should like to make progress.
I was contrasting our position with that of the hon. Member for Stafford. However, I agree with him about one thing. The debate about Maastricht and the level of public knowledge about what is involved has been distorted by the Government attempting to face both ways. They do one thing while pretending to do another. They claim that Maastricht is all about reaffirming the power of nation states when the treaty seeks to pool a measure of sovereignty.
The Government claim that subsidiarity applies to all Community activities when it is plain from the text of the treaty that it does not. They claim that the Prime Minister has won great victories in bringing Europe round to his view when all that he has succeeded in doing is to achieve opt-outs which would consign Britain to the second division.
We remember the Government's other claims. They said that the ERM was the cornerstone of Government economic policy. According to the Prime Minister, at least this year Britain will never have to take part in the ERM again. The Government said that the pound would replace the deutschmark as the strongest currency of Europe. They claimed that other European countries envied our economic miracle.
With such a litany of contradiction, U-turns and doublespeak, no wonder that so many people are unsure of the treaty's purpose. Worst of all, at a time of devastating unemployment across the Community, the utter failure of the British presidency to place at the top of Europe's agenda the crying need for a co-ordinated programme for economic recovery was a dereliction of responsibility which not only failed to meet the economic and social


needs of the people of Europe but was bound to make many doubt the relevance of the Community to their everyday lives.
Our key goals in discussing the amendments and issues before us are to improve the Bill; to make it clear how Labour would want the treaty to operate in practice in the interest of the people of Britain and the people of Europe; and to win the case for the inclusion of the social chapter so that Britain will benefit from the provisions for employment rights and partnership which other Community countries realise are essential for economic success in the single market, as well as for employees' well-being.
We seek to win genuine regional representation on the Committee of the Regions, recognising that subsidiarity should start at home; to place economic policy within a framework of political accountability so that Community institutions and policy are the servant, not the master, of the people of Europe; and to make European co-operation a vehicle for sustainable growth. We shall return to all those important matters in the debates on subsequent specific groups of amendments.
I should like to make a brief reference to article 138a and then make some general comments about the convergence criteria, to which I referred when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) intervened.
Article 138a, raised in our probing amendment No. 20 —which we shall not press to a vote—refers to political parties at the European level. Labour has consistently stressed the need for closer European integration being accompanied by measures to strengthen democracy and political accountability in the Community. That must mean an enhanced role for the European Parliament, as well as a more powerful role for bodies such as ECOFIN, to which I have referred. Also, it means that campaigning organisations, trade unions and business groups will build further on the considerable progress that they have already made to establish working European associations, making an invaluable contribution to the democratic process at the European level, as well as extending their formal involvement in Community decision-taking, for example, as partners in the social dialogue.
All that is to be welcomed and encouraged, but as article 138a recognises, political parties have an important role at European level to extend awareness of and participation in the European dimension of politics. I am pleased to be able to say that the Labour party has played a full role in that process, previously through the Confederation of European Socialist Parties and, since the Hague congress and declaration of 9 November last year, in the party of European Socialists which will be a force for stronger political co-operation in Europe.
Given the Government's support for article 138a in the treaty, I challenge the Minister to make clear whether the British Conservative party will carry that into effect by becoming a full member of the so-called European People's party, which supports the social chapter, or is there to be another cop-out and opt-out? I shall give way to the Minister if he wants to intervene.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).

Mr. Spearing: By and large, my hon. Friend has made a factual statement. Article 138a is an addition to the existing treaties. Why is it necessary? Surely the operation of parties, even on a European level through the confederation and in this country, is an established fact of democracy. Why does it have to be put in a treaty, which is a legal document relating to powers and finances?

Mr. Smith: Perhaps it is all about applying the Short principle on the European level—I do not know. I was referring to the fact that it is of value to reaffirm in the treaty the importance of political parties at a European level.
An important part of the co-operation and democratic accountability that we want to establish is the arrangements for ensuring that the House is fully involved in the consideration of European policy. We have tabled amendments to that end, in later groups.
In addition, as part of the group of amendments before us, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) may seek to move new clause 10, standing in his name and that of other hon. Friends. The proposal to submit the reports to which it refers to this Parliament has much to commend it. Unless I hear compelling arguments to the contrary, I shall be inclined to support it.
It is important that we consider convergence criteria in this general debate, not least because they have been interpreted in different ways in the wider public discussion. Some of those interpretations do not properly reflect the wording of the treaty and some of the political implications that have been imputed to the criteria would not serve the cause of co-ordinated economic recovery, which the Labour party believes should be top priority.
I am sure that the Minister will point out that Britain is not committed by the treaty to the third stage of economic and monetary union, but that begs as many questions as it answers. The key arguments on the criteria for convergence are, first, that the criteria are not blanket requirements. They are some aspects of economic performance which must be evaluated in determining how far the economies of various member states have converged before the establishment of economic and monetary union, and one set of considerations to evaluate comparative economic performance after such a union. The criteria are not cast in stone, which is just as well, given what has happened recently with the ERM.
Secondly, the articles that apply the criteria explicitly and rightly require them to take account of wider economic considerations. For example, the article on Government deficits, to which some of my hon. Friends have referred, requires the Commission to take account of the extent of Government investment and expenditure and the medium-term economic and budgetary position of member states.
Thirdly, the protocol on convergence criteria requires the Council of Ministers to adopt appropriate provisions to lay down the details of those convergence criteria, which will then replace those set out in the protocol. Therefore, Governments would have the opportunity to make it clear —as we urge the British Government to make clear now —that the criteria should not be defined or deployed so as to implement monetarist policies, or to inhibit economic recovery in member states. What Labour has long said —and what the Government should be saying and should have said when they occupied the presidency—is that


convergence should encompass the employment, industrial, investment and environmental measures essential for European economic recovery.
What is more, the Government have a strong obligation to do just that. Article 102a of the treaty states:
Member states shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2.
To fulfil that requirement, and in the light of the extent of the recession, the consequences of rebuilding the economy of eastern Germany and the recent experience of the ERM, under the provisions in the treaty for redefining the convergence criteria, as well as under articles 102a and 103 on economic co-ordination, the Community will need to agree the most effective way to put progress towards economic and monetary union back on course. That should be accompanied by co-ordinated policies for jobs, investment, training and growth. Nothing in the treaty is a barrier to Britain adopting those policies; it is the lack of political will on the part of the Conservative Government.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Smith: What is more, if Britain's voice is to be heard, it needs to be clear to our Community partners as well as in the House that our goal is to make European co-operation work in the interests of the people of Britain and of Europe, and not to sabotage it nor to wreck the treaty, which is the principal means to hand to give effect to that co-operation.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Essentially my hon. Friend is saying that the treaty does not quite mean what it says and that under a Labour Government it will be interpreted differently, although I would prefer—to paraphrase Aneurin Bevan—not to look at his crystal balls, but to read the text of the treaty. Can he answer this question? In the view of the Opposition Front Bench, does title II require us to go back into the ERM as a precondition of doing any of those things? What is the position on that?

Mr. Smith: I have already made that clear. I was talking about the way in which the convergence criteria will need to be redefined. The treaty places obligations on member states and on the Community to implement economic policies that will realise the objectives in article 2.
On the exchange rate mechanism, we have never made any secret of the fact that our party is committed to the principle of managed exchange rates. We have also set out the way in which the management of exchange rates needs to be changed to combat speculators.

6 pm

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way as I am about to conclude.
Within the framework provided by the treaty—I emphasise that it must include the social chapter—the Committee should make clear our commitment to work for the full application of the provisions in article 2. That would give expression to the policies agreed at the founding conference of the party of European Socialists at the Hague, when we declared:
We maintain the ideal of a democratic Europe that is both open to its citizens and to the world; a Europe that

brings economic and social prosperity for all; a Europe where solidarity between and within nations as well as between generations is a guiding principle.
It would also put into practice, for the benefit of the people of Europe, as of Britain, the policy passed overwhelmingly at the Labour party conference, which
reaffirms Labour's vision of Europe with Britain's future at the heart of a European Community which is economically prosperous and which has high standards of social and environmental protection and citizens' rights … believes that the Maastricht Treaty, while not perfect, is the best agreement that can currently be achieved.
As we debate this group of general amendments and more specific amendments later we shall make clear our commitment to closer economic and political co-operation in Europe and how we believe that the Maastricht treaty should be implemented with the social chapter. That must happen if the treaty is to be a decisive step towards the economic and social progress that Europe needs and the Labour party wants to see.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse, have you yet heard from the Government whether there will be a statement later tonight concerning the American attack on Iraq?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): No. I call Mr. Garel-Jones.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The amendment tabled by my hon.

Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash): —

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not the normal convention in Committee, particularly when that stage is taken in the Chamber, for spokesmen on both Front Benches to give way freely? Otherwise, how can we have a proper dialogue?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time, and he knows that it is a matter for those speaking to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I should like to refer to another convention that I thought was part and parcel of the Committee stage. I thought that Ministers did not reply to a debate in Committee before those who have tabled amendments selected with the main amendment have had an opportunity to speak. The second amendment, No. 323, in this group appears in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other hon. Friends, but we have not had an opportunity to speak to it. It now appears, however, that the Minister is about to speak. I ask the right hon. Gentleman through you, Mr. Lofthouse, to obey the normal conventions in Committee and to allow us to speak to our amendment

The First Deputy Chairman: I know that the Chairman dealt with a similar point of order earlier when he called the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) to speak on behalf of the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. John Butcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. You will recall that, in the Committee sittings before Christmas, a great deal of anxiety was expressed because about 20 hon. Members who had hoped to catch the Chair's eye could not do so. That group included hon. Members from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It seemed that a gentlemen's convention had been violated.
Fundamental questions were asked during those sittings. Normally, in Committee we follow an iterative process and such questions are answered. However, the closure was moved when a number of those fundamental questions had not been answered. I beg you, Mr. Lofthouse, to ensure that we now have a Committee debate in the truest sense of the word, so that we can proceed in good order and good-naturedly.

The First Deputy Chairman: I note the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I should just like to note that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) raised his point of order about those on the Front Benches failing to give way after I had spoken only about five words of my speech. I am sure that the Committee will concede that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was generous in giving way to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will certainly seek to do the same.
Equally, I shall try not to detain the Committee for too long, so that I may follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who managed to reduce his speech to a quarter of that which he made at our last sitting. That may mean that more hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—in particular, my two countrymen, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) who sat through all our last sitting and did not manage to intervene—can speak.
For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the Financial Secretary will seek at some point to catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, to pick up points made by right hon. and hon. Members about economic and monetary union, convergence criteria, economic policy and so on.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way at this early stage. He has announced that, once he has seen the Bill through, he will retire from the Cabinet and leave the job. I am sorry to hear that, because I have always found him an accommodating Minister. His departure, however, poses the question whether someone who is, to coin the phrase, a "here today, gone tomorrow" Minister should shepherd through such a momentous Bill, which has such enormous constitutional and economic repercussions. His departure will call into question the nature of the answers that he will give to the difficult problems that will be raised in our proceedings. Surely such assurances could be cast aside by his successor as the responsibility of his predecessor.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me in a premature way to the Cabinet, of which I am not a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I agree. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that we are all here today, gone tomorrow. I assure my hon. Friend from the Whips Office who is sitting behind me that, when I return to the Back Benches, I intend to continue to take the same line as I have done in government.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. It has just gone up on the tapes that there has been American military action against Iraq. In view of what was said this afternoon in the Committee, I once again ask for a Government statement as soon as possible, particularly if British forces are involved.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is a matter for the Government, but no doubt those on the Treasury Bench will have noted what he said.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I raised this matter with Madam Speaker when she was in the Chair before the House went into Committee, and she assured me that she would give careful consideration to any request by the Government to make a statement about this latest savage attack.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It might be helpful, Mr. Lofthouse, if I said at once that we have arranged for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. What will happen at 10 o'clock? What is the possible scenario? If the Government want to make a statement after 10 o'clock, will they have to suspend the 10 o'clock business motion first?

The First Deputy Chairman: We shall have to wait and see. Statements at 10 o'clock take precedence.

Mr. Marlow: My question is fairly straightforward.

The First Deputy Chairman: I gave a fairly straightforward answer—we shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has moved is the same as one of the other amendments in the group tabled by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It would delete from the scope of the Bill all amendments to the treaty of Rome.
It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that this is a fairly sweeping amendment and that it is utterly at odds with the purpose of the Bill. The European Communities Act 1972 created a framework within our domestic law for recognising Community rights and obligations arising from the treaty of Rome. The Maastricht treaty amends the treaty of Rome, and, as has been pointed out from the Chair, we need to amend our legislation to take account of that fact. This amendment would prevent us from making that necessary change and would make it impossible for us to ratify the Maastricht treaty. It is, of course, in order, as it has been selected by the Chair, but it is clearly a wrecking amendment, which cannot be portrayed as anything else, and I shall ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The Chair has already ruled that a wrecking amendment would not have been selected. How, therefore, can the Minister say that this is a wrecking amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman: I can support what the Chair has said: that at no time would a wrecking amendment have been accepted. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the word that he has just used.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I was present in the Committee when that ruling was given from the Chair. That is why I have taken care to say that the amendment is, of course, in order. You, Mr. Lofthouse, have asked me to withdraw the word "wrecking". Naturally I do so.
The point that I am trying to make is that, if this amendment is approved, Her Majesty's Government will be rendered unable to ratify the treaty. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall therefore ask the Committee to reject it.

Sir Russell Johnston: Surely there is a difference between wrecking in a technical sense, and wrecking in a rhetorical sense.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Indeed.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman has said that this amendment would make the treaty unratifiable. Does he not agree that any amendment resulting in the deletion of any part of the Maastricht treaty would make the treaty unratifiable?

Mr. Garel-Jones: That is the case, but there are on the Order Paper other amendments—the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware of them—which, if carried, would not make the treaty unratifiable. There is a distinction.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). I am sure that, like me, the Committee is grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indication that these are probing amendments designed to provoke debate and discussion. I should like to treat and respond to them in that spirit.
Amendment No. 11, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), seeks to delete from the scope of the Bill the revised article 2 of the treaty of Rome, which describes the tasks of the Community. This article replaces the existing article 2 of the treaty of Rome—revising it for the first time since the formation of the Community, and expanding its original terms. Thus, it will include references to sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, to convergence—a reference to economic and monetary union—to cohesion, and to the raising of the standard of living and the quality of life throughout the Community.
As the hon. Member for Oxford, East has said, these are all worthy aims for states members of the Community to pursue. They are certainly the aims of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, from time to time—this is a matter for debate between the two sides of the Committee —the ways in which we seek to pursue them will differ according to our respective political philosophies.
Article 2 of the treaty sets out in general terms the goals of the European Community. As amended, the article would make it clear that these aims are to be achieved through implementation of the common policies and activities detailed in the rest of the treaty. The article should therefore be read with articles 3 and 3a, which set out the detailed activities of the Community.
6.15 pm
The goal of article 2 should be seen as being to guide the Community as a whole. It is inevitable that, from time to time within the Community, there will be different views on how to attain this, but there will be no lack of agreement on the means set out in the body of the treaty.
Also in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is another probing amendment to delete article 138a from the scope of the Bill. As the Committee has been told, this amendment too is intended to stimulate debate on article

138a, which, in itself, is simply declaratory and recognises the importance of political parties at European level. I am glad to have an opportunity to debate the importance of European political parties, and I am relieved that the Opposition have no intention of pressing the amendment to a Division.
We have been told about Labour's commitment to the European socialist group in the European Parliament. I can confirm that the Conservative party, like the Christian Democtrats, is an allied member of the European Parliament group of the European People's party. I myself cannot envisage the Conservative party's becoming a Christian Democratic party. Indeed, one of the interesting things about the enlargement of the Community—I think that I am right in saying this—is that, assuming, as we expect, that the four applicants will become members, those that are on the centre right and do not have a Christian Democratic tradition in their countries will be in the majority in the European Parliament.
The centre right in countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Spain—to mention just three of the larger countries in the Community that do not have a Christian Democratic tradition—is finding it easy to work alongside its Christian Democratic partners. However, each of us puts a unique spin on the ball of centre-right policies in Europe, and we, with our Christian Democratic allies, will seek to ensure that what we see as the free-market principles on which the European Community is based are upheld, not just in our national and domestic politics but also at a European level.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Surely the Minister's reservations about Christian democracy do not make it impossible for the Conservatives to move from being allied members to being full members. Surely what really prevents them from moving to full membership is that the group supports the common social policy, that its Governments have been prepared to sign the social chapter and, indeed, have criticised the British Conservative party for not going along with a positive social policy.

Mr. Garel-Jones: No. It goes much deeper. The European Community countries that do not have a Christian Democratic tradition—the United Kingdom is one of them—feel, for example, that Christian democracy has a slightly corporatist approach to life that other centre-right parties do not have. I do not say that in any critical sense. For example, in the main Christian Democratic countries in western Europe, there are, as it were, client trade unions. The Conservatives have no such thing. The only client trade unions that exist in this country are on the left of British politics.
There are some fundamental historical differences between Christian democracy and other centre-right parties, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no difficulty in working with our Christian Democratic friends in Europe. Indeed, even though we are a minority in the European Parliament, we managed to defeat an absurd amendment from the European socialists, prompted by the European Labour party in the European Parliament—thanks to the skilful whipping of Mr. Tindemans and other members of the Conservative group.

Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Minister for giving way so that I may provide some information for his benefit, but also for the benefit of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who was significantly less


willing to give way. We were told that the Labour party had consistently been in favour of strengthening the European Parliament. My recollection is that the socialist manifesto issued before the last European election did indeed say that, but the Labour party had a derogation from it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is very unkind. Thanks to the Conservative party's consistent stand as a pro-European party over the past 20 years, and the number of defeats that have been inflicted on the Labour party, not least because of its absurd commitment to withdraw from the European Economic Community, as it was then called, the Labour party has finally seen the light and become a pro-European party, albeit in socialist terms. The Liberal Democrat party and the Conservative party, which have consistently stood on that platform, must be grateful for small mercies. It is unkind of the hon. Gentleman to remind the Labour party of its past in that matter.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does the Minister recall the advertisement by the Conservative party at the European elections in 1989, which complained about the diet of Brussels? Did he endorse that campaign, which was aimed directly at opposing the European Community?

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is unfair to say that it was aimed in opposition to the European Community, because the Conservative party not only negotiated Britain's entry into the Community but has stood up against the onslaughts of the Labour party in the past 20 years and negotiated the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. I agree that that was not the most successful advertisement or campaign that the Conservative party has ever run, and I assure him that next time there is a European campaign, we shall run a much more successful and aggressive one.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber has permitted himself an unkindness to the socialists, may I say that the political party in Britain that faces the greatest difficulty in European integration is the Liberal party. European Liberals remain Liberals in the sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would understand the term. Our Liberals, with one or two distinguished exceptions, of whom the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is one, are really European Social Democrats. The difficulty that British Liberals have in signing up to any European Liberal principles is notorious in Europe. Most European Liberals regard them as watered-down Social Democrats.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am left virtually speechless. The Minister has well outbidded me in unkindness and inaccuracy.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The last of the probing amendments tabled by the Opposition seeks to delete article H from the Bill—that is, all the amendments to the European Coal and Steel Community included in title III. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East did not refer to that, am I right in assuming that the amendment was tabled early in the day, and that he is not asking me to reply to it?

Mr. George Robertson: indicated assent.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Before the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) speaks, may I refer to new clause 10, which is important and which the

hon. Member for Oxford, East said that the Labour party might support. He was not firm about it, but said that he would be prepared to listen to arguments about it.
If accepted, new clause 10 would require the Government by law to publish and lay before Parliament reports produced by the European Council under article D of the union treaty and to publish at the same time a policy statement. The Committee will agree that the amendment is surprising. Drawing up procedures for parliamentary scrutiny should be a matter for this House alone. We should be going down a dangerous route if our practices were to be regulated by an international treaty or legislation tabled by the Executive. It would be quite a change if the working practices of the House were settled through the statute book, by a Bill introduced by the Executive.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I said that the new clause had a great deal to commend it and that, unless I heard compelling arguments to the contrary. I would be inclined to support it. I have heard no compelling arguments so far. The new clause amends legislation before the Committee and does not amend a treaty. It would extend to the House the same opportunity to scrutinise the reports of the European Council's work as would be available to the European Parliament. That would be a good thing.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am in the middle of making my argument. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, and that is why I am dealing carefully with new clause 10. I took it that the hon. Gentleman had an open mind on it and wanted to debate it.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way in a moment.
I hope that hon. Members will express their opinions on the new clause during the debate because it is a House of Commons matter, which is why we should listen to each other's arguments.
Apart from the principle that we should legislate on Standing Orders, Parliament already has full scope for detailed scrutiny of the Government's approach to the European Community. For example, the Prime Minister always reports the outcome of each European Council to the House and is questioned on that report. The conclusions produced at each European Council meeting are deposited in Parliament.
Parliament is also closely associated with the timetable of European Council meetings. At the House's request, a six-monthly debate takes place in the House before every European Council meeting and also looks ahead to future work and priorities. The Council also provides an annual report to the European Parliament on the Community's work, which is made available in the Library.
The debate is important because the Opposition have an open mind on it. The Committee should bear in mind the fact that, when these debates take place, which is quite often, some of my hon. Friends find it difficult to get enough Members to keep the debate going.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: May I finish my argument? Then I shall be pleased to give way to hon. Members.
On new clause 10, I contend that there will be no shortage of opportunities to examine the Government's


policy on the activities and progress of the union, or to keep the House fully informed of the European Council's activities, both before and after each of those meetings. The procedures seem to be adequate in any case but, if the Committee felt that they were inadequate and wanted the Government to make further demarches through a Select Committee, it should decide about the matter, and it should not be subject to legislation introduced by the Executive.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will no doubt wish to convince the Committee that the new clause is worthy of support. That is a matter for him, but the device is both cumbersome and unnecessary. If you, Mr. Lofthouse, were to allow a Division on it, unless arguments convince me otherwise, I will ask the Committee to reject it.

Mrs. Gorman: On the matter of my right hon. Friend's preamble on the subject of European parties and similarities between us, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and God knows who else, is that not almost irrelevant? After all, the European Parliament, to which all these people and their parties are elected, has virtually no powers at all over the Commission except in the matter of approving the budget. Is it not true that the Council of Ministers makes the decisions and that it only reacts to what the bureaucracy has prepared for it? Its members simply do not have the time to consider and debate the ideas which we should be putting forward, so the whole

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that, in some areas, the Commission has the exclusive right of initiative where member states have agreed they should have it. But my hon. Friend is right: the key body is the Council of Ministers. Decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers, who are accountable to their national Parliaments, but we have, I think rightly, given additional powers to the European Parliament in the Maastricht treaty—mainly powers of supervision over the Commission and its activities, but also as a body to which the citizen can go to complain about injustices or maladministration by the Community. I think that that is a good thing. We have given it the power of negative assent, or rejection, at the end of the process in some carefully defined areas.

Mr. George Robertson: Reverting to new clause 10 and to the Minister's case as to why we should not consider it sympathetically, he has given a number of examples of where the Government choose to consult the House to inform it of European Community business.
In that respect, it is largely correct, except that a lot of it is by custom and practice—custom and practice that the Government choose to deploy in that way. The six-monthly debate on the report of the European Community used to take place at the whim of the Government at various times during the six months; it was only brought to a point where it related to the European Council meeting because of the House's decision to try to anchor it at a specific point.
The Minister is right to say that the Prime Minister reports to the House after every full European Council meeting, but there was a time—it is within my

parliamentary life—when it was an obligation on the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to report to the House after every Foreign Affairs Council meeting. We have not had such a report for many years now; it fell into disuse because the Foreign Office decided that it simply would not do it.
Surely, therefore, there is something to be said here, in such an important area, where there will be a statutory responsibility for the European Parliament to receive a report on the work of the union, for the British Parliament having a similarly anchored commitment to receive exactly the same information.

Mr. Garel-Jones: One of the differences between our Parliament and most others in Europe is that we do things by custom and practice. Having, as I do, some knowledge of Parliaments in other parts of Europe, I find that the way in which we organise our lives here is rather more efficient than people would expect.
I think that the statements from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fell into desuetude because the demand for them was not there at the time. That is my understanding. The hon. Member is, however, well aware that, when the House wishes something to happen, and when something has become an established practice in the House, under the non-written constitutional arrangements that we have in this country, it is a pretty tight bet.
Here we are in Committee. It is true, Mr. Lofthouse, that I have no obligation to give way to any hon. Member, but if I were to stand up and read out my speech without giving way to hon. Members on both sides, it would be regarded as pretty outrageous. But it is not written down anywhere.
The Committee will decide when we come to a Division, and the hon. Member will talk to those in his party who are Whips, but I can remember in a former capacity rushing round the House on many occasions, trying to find hon. Members to come in so that a particular debate should not collapse before 10 o'clock.
I just warn the House against putting into statute what ought to be done through Standing Orders and by custom and practice. If the House genuinely believes that the present provisions for debate and discussion on these matters are inadequate, that is something that should be discussed through the usual channels and in the Select Committee on Procedure, in the way we normally do these things.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is suggesting almost that this is a matter of principle. There is a great deal of scrutiny of European legislation by the House at present, as my right hon. Friend knows, and I presume that this was established through legislation. All that is suggested—

Sir Russell Johnston: Through procedure.

Mr. Marlow: Through procedure? Not through legislation? Well, is there any damage or harm done by enshrining it in legislation? An increasing amount of information is made available to the House at the moment. My right hon. Friend, along with many others, agrees that there is a democratic deficit in the Community at present. Would it not be helpful in overcoming that democratic deficit to agree to this amendment?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views and temperament about the Community as a whole, but, in considering new clause 10, I urge him to look at it in a different light, as a House of Commons matter. For example, the two new Standing Committees that we have for scrutinising European Community legislation have in some respects been extremely successful, but the Committee will know that, after a year or so, discussions go on, through the usual channels and through the Select Committee on Procedure, and if the House feels that those arrangements are inadequate and have not met the House's ambitions in the matter, it is possible to change them.
I urge my hon. Friend, because he is anxious, as I think all hon. Members are, to ensure, as I see it, our enthusiastic co-operation in a European union, that we keep the traditions of the House about the way it organises its business, and that it should be done on a custom and practice basis that enables hon. Members, through the usual channels, to discuss these matters. On that basis, I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that his new clause is unnecessary.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I am a signatory of the new clause. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will give a substantive reply to this mini-debate, but I am rather surprised at the Minister's statement. Declaration 13 on page 127 of the treaty states:
The Conference considers that it is important to encourage greater involvement of national Parliaments in the activities of the European Union.
The new clause does not call for a debate; it has nothing to do with the usual channels or time in this Chamber. The second and very important part of it is that, after the report has been made—the same one that goes to the European Parliament, so we are acting in parallel, as many hon. Members wish—says that the Government shall lay a statement
as to their policy and performance in respect of the activities of the Union and their policies for its future.
Surely this is accountability of the Government to the House and to the country, written into a Bill or an Act, which is common in many Acts. It is a matter of democratic accountability and not of the procedures of debate in this House.

Mr. Garel-Jones: That is a matter that the Committee must decide. I believe that it would be inappropriate and inconsistent with the traditions of the House for its Standing Orders or for the way in which it chooses to scrutinise the Executive to be written into an Act of Parliament. That is my view.
Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is probably more aware than any other hon. Member, over the next three or four years, the House will have to decide how it intends to scrutinise the activities in the intergovernmental pillars of the union. The common foreign and security policy will not present the House with a great many problems, because, as a general rule, foreign policy does not produce legislation; but the interior and justice pillar may—I very much hope that it will—produce legislation on matters of law and order, immigration, frontiers and so on on a European basis, and the House will need to decide how it is to inform itself in this matter.

It is an area where, it seems to me, the House will come up with some ideas and will adjust them, and the beauty of operating by custom and practice in the House is precisely the ability to do so.
As for the declaration on the role of national Parliaments, the British Government insisted that it should be a declaration, not a protocol, because it was a matter for the House. How the House chooses to attend, represent itself and make its input in the discussions on the role of national Parliaments is a matter initiated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in consultation with his opposite number, through to the minority parties.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but in doing so he can clarify matters now and obviate the need for later contributions. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that statements on Foreign Affairs Councils had fallen into desuetude. Presumably, according to what the Minister has just said, that was because no issues were raised through the usual channels.
In his introductory remarks when he called on us to reject new clause 10, the Minister said that such changes should not be introduced as part of a Bill presented by the Executive, but should be decided by Parliament. If Parliament decides to introduce the new clause tonight, that will constitute a decision of Parliament against the Executive.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course I accept that the new clause is not a wrecking clause—I do not use the word "wrecking" in the aggressive sense. If the new clause is carried, it will not mean that the Government are unable to ratify the Maastricht Bill. I want to make that clear to the Committee, which is why I am inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), as well as other of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members, to regard the subject as a House of Commons matter.
From my knowledge of other European Parliaments, I can assure the Committee—I am not necessarily speaking as a member of the Government—that the House carries out its business much more efficiently than people imagine. To pick up the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton, at present, at the end of each European Council meeting we state what was discussed at the Council in reply to a parliamentary written question. If the House felt that it wanted a verbal statement, that desire would be raised through the usual channels and discussed and, if necessary, the Select Committee on Procedure could become involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was much exercised by the fact that the Maastricht treaty describes the European Community as the European Community, not the European Economic Community. The Maastricht treaty simply formalises what has been a general practice for many years. My hon. Friend seemed to be worried about that on the ground that he and some of my other hon. Friends have always regarded the European Community as a common market, so the removal of the word "economic" implied something broader to him.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is not present. When he supported the Single European Act—he again confirmed today that he does not renege on that—that Act introduced an article on social policy. Therefore, it must have been clear to him then that


we were engaged in something slightly more than casual encounters in the market place. The term "European Community" has long been used in the House by many people, including my right hon. Friend the Baroness Thatcher, as long ago as 1981. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard the use of the term in the treaty as of special significance.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister made an understandable distinction and said that the Government had sought to ensure that there was a declaration, not a protocol, in relation to national Parliaments. Will he confirm what I assume to be true, which is that none of the declarations in the treaty falls within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I think that they fall within the scope of the Bill but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a declaration is not legally binding on any member state. The declarations fall within the scope of the Bill, but they are not legally binding and are not, I am told, imported into domestic law. I shall take advice on that matter and reply to the hon. Gentleman later.

Mr. Jenkin: It is ironic that we are changing the name of the European Economic Community to the European Community at the same time as Her Majesty's Government are insisting that the Community is an economic pillar in a union of separate pillars that relate to issues other than economics. As originally formulated in the Single European Act and the existing treaty of Rome, the Community is principally an economic community. However, the new article 2 mentions objectives such as social cohesion and solidarity. We know that the pillars are associated with the Community through various articles in the Maastricht treaty.
Therefore, in the European Economic Community, we are creating something much more than an economic pillar. That is the reason for the desire to change the name. We are the only country at odds with the objectives of the other 11 member Governments, who want to create a Community that includes the pillars in the fullest sense. That is why the Commission has just appointed new Commissioners to have responsibility for matters that we regard as outside their control—such as justice and home and foreign affairs.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The European Community is a developing and living institution. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is being a little unfair to himself and others if he believes that the European Community has always been conceived as nothing more than a market. One only has to read the preamble to the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act to see that the Community was always more than that.
If we are successful in persuading many of our partners that there should be intergovernmentalism within the union, as I hope and believe we will be—that will be the debate for 1996 and beyond—I would not be surprised if, over the years, the term "European union" became more common than the term "European Community". I would not regard such a development as sinister. In essence, the treaty merely recognises what has become custom and practice. Almost everyone refers to the European Community as the European Community.

Mr. John Townend: Is not the change of terminology much more significant than my right hon. Friend is making out? The word "union" is much more significant to Europeans than the word "Community". I accept the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues when they say that they are opposed to the Community being developed as a federal state. However, is it not a fact that all the other leaders —with the possible exception of the Danish Prime Minister—see Maastricht as a move towards a federal state? Is it not dangerous to sign a treaty that we think means one thing and the other 11 member states think means something else?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not want to deceive my hon. Friend. It is true that, during the past 30 years, a number of our partners have moved towards a single structure—I would almost go as far as to say that the whole thrust of the Community has been towards a single structure. In many ways, our reticence was due to the fact that we joined the Community late.
The beauty of the Maastricht treaty is that, for the first time, we have emerged from a set of negotiations not merely saying that we made the best of a bad job and managed to hold things back. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is in his place—he played a significant part in the development. There was pressure to push all the Home Office business into a single structure. The crucial moment occurred at the time of the Dutch text, when the federalists fought what I hope will be their last battle in the development of the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) wishes to see a single structure. That is not a sin. It is almost the majority view in Europe, and it is the view of the Liberals.
We cannot be certain of anything, but the treaty gives us a chance to make intergovernmentalism work. Some countries in the Community now support that approach, but when the Dutch text was produced, only two countries were prepared to support it.
Part of my task is to persuade hon. Members who have perfectly understandable doubts about the matter that, if the Conservative party enthusiastically supports intergovernmentalism, considers law and order on a European scale and successfully presses ahead on common foreign and security policies, we can enter the 1996 intergovernmental conference with the enlarged membership increasingly beginning to shape the Europe that Conservatives have always wanted to see.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. It would be wrong if hon. Members who have sat here throughout the debate did not have time to speak.
The Danish decision has been mentioned, and the Committee has a right to hear the Government's view on it. The Government do not intend to amend the Bill to incorporate the decision on Denmark. That decision does not amend the Maastricht treaty or Community treaties; nor does it create any rights or obligations in EC law that require to be given effect in United Kingdom law. Therefore, it does not require to be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: To some extent my right hon. Friend is being a little less than frank with the Committee. He says that this great juggernaut has been turned around by the Government's heroic efforts, and that things are now moving our way. The reality is that, in areas where the Community already has competence, it is being given more, as well as more majority voting. We are dealing with new areas of policy where it does not have quite the competence that it had before, but they are new areas, and the Community now has new competences. In all those areas, the Commission will be present and will have rights of initiation.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The European Community, the European union, is a developing institution. The Government, or at any rate British Conservatives, have rightly been uneasy over the past 30 years about the centripetal force driving the Community. At the very least, the Maastricht treaty can be said to have arrested that centripetalism.
The intergovernmentalism that has emerged, and the way in which the treaty is structured, gives British Conservatives for the first time an opportunity to gain morer allies for our vision of Europe. A British Prime Minister at that 1996 intergovernmental conference will, if we back the treaty enthusiastically, not be batting alone against the rest of the Community and picking up allies where he can. He will find that a substantial bloc, which I hope will contain some of the new members who have acceded—I am sure that it will also contain Denmark—will join us in shaping the Community in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North spoke about extended competences. As we debate the detailed articles, he will find that education, which he would no doubt describe as a new competence, is covered. The new article on education defines and limits the extent to which the Community can operate in education, and does it in a much stronger way than was allowed for in the Single European Act.
Under that Act, the Community attempted, under what we often saw as a false treaty basis, to move into education. Now, the specific areas are defined, and the article states that there shall be no harmonising measures. As we debate the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend will find significant improvements compared with the Single European Act. I confirm that declarations are outside the Bill's scope.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister spoke about the Danish decision. The Government line, described by the Prime Minister, is that the Danish decision is binding in international law. Does that mean that the International Court of Justice at the Hague has jurisdiction and could enforce that decision if necessary?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Any binding international decision that is in dispute would go to the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
I have taken up enough of the Committee's time. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will deal with economic and monetary union.

Mr. Spearing: I had hoped to speak to the amendment, but, because of the Chairman's choice in relation to the Edinburgh matter, I now have two tasks. I shall deal later with the Edinburgh issues. I am glad to pick up immediately the Minister's point about what he says has

been a change in the centripetal authoritarian tendency in the Community. He and the Prime Minister claim not only to have halted but to have reversed that tendency. Many times the Minister has said that for the first time we have this or that. He nods in agreement. I shall try to prove what I said during the recommittal debate—if I can call it that. That is not true. If anything, the reverse is correct.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that I have never said that Britain has won, because in the development of the Community there are never final victories or final defeats. Most objective observers and certainly everyone in Europe believe that the shape envisaged by the treaty is a substantial advance for those who take a nation state view of Europe rather than for those who seek to be integrationists in a single structure. The debate is continuing and we need the enthusiasm and dedication of all political parties in the United Kingdom if we are to punch our weight and win more points.

Mr. Spearing: I agree that the Minister has never spoken about victories, but he has said that there has been a change of attitude and a change of mood. He nods in agreement. I dissent from that view. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to reply to my letter of 15 December on some of these matters. Perhaps if he cannot reply to my questions in the debate he will write to me. I hope that he will deliver a winding-up speech, because he has not yet heard all the contributions.
The Minister will remember Maastricht mark I or, rather, the Dutch treaty which was hurriedly removed from the public eye when the Dutch presidency started. It was chucked away. Everybody said that it was going too far too fast and that it was too ambitious. A few days ago I asked the Minister which of the matters in the treaty that disappeared were not within the scope of the present treaty. We are debating what the Minister called the trunk of the treaty—titles II, III and IV—and the supporting
I suggest that that is not the right analogy. Instead, we have a single building with a few partitions inside it. It is all pretty flimsy, and some of the partitions might be paper rather than the real thing. I asked the Minister—he replied only the other day—to tell me what matters that were to be found in the treaty that was suddenly removed are not within the treaty that is before us. The Minister could not refer to any. In other words, the so-called treaty of Maastricht—the treaty of union that we have before us —is of similar scope to the treaty that was introduced during the Dutch presidency in September 1991, and was then hurriedly withdrawn.
7 pm
The difference between the two treaties, as the Minister correctly says, is in the scope of specific Community competence, as envisaged in the titles that we are discussing, and that which he claims to be entirely intergovernmental that surrounds it. Incidentally, this is of importance in respect of the Edinburgh decision, because the Edinburgh European Council was not the intergovernmental body which made the decision. There is a fine but important distinction to be made.
Why do I say that the union edifice is very different from the structure that the Minister wishes to project to us? The elements of the trunk and of the European Community that are to be found within the so-called pillars are manifold. I would like to go through them in detail, but I shall not do so because I know that others


wish to contribute to the debate. In title I, however, we find no fewer than eight references to institutions of the Community. They are not intergovernmental, because they are part of the trunk. There is one reference to the Council, four references to the Commission, two to the Parliament and one to the European Court of Justice. The elements within titles II, III and IV get into title I as well, and that was supposed to be entirely intergovernmental.
We were told that there would not be penetration into the other parts of the treaty. Article J deals with foreign and security matters. Within it there are 17 references to the Council and six to the Commission—23 in all. I am sorry that the Minister of State is not in his place to hear what I have to say because this is proveable stuff.
I move on to article K, which deals with judicial and home affairs. We cannot get more national than that. In the series of articles—it starts with K1—there are three references to the Council, four to the Commission, two to the Parliament and one provision for the European Court. If we take up cross-references—I shall not do so in detail—there are no fewer than 40 references to the Community's institutions as they are at present in the so-called pillars. Surprise, surprise, many of them refer to the ubiquitous Commission.
The Commission is there all the time, and that is because it is charged with making the whole outfit coherent. That is made clear in the early articles of the treaty. The Commission has the right to understand what the pie is doing, if it is not a finger steering the pie, as it were. This means that titles II and III are much expanded. I suggest that the union is the entire temple and not the single trunk with supporting pillars, and that the claims of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State are not correct. I shall prove that—I hope to be able to do so entirely within the terms of the debate—in relation to the powers of the European Court, which are established and are of the Community.
Migration and home affairs are covered in article K. Article K3.2 (c) reads:
without prejudice to article 220 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, draw up conventions"—
this is a reference to the Council—
which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Unless otherwise provided by such conventions, measures implementing them shall be adopted within the Council by a majority of two-thirds of the High Contracting Parties.
That is the Council. There it is. It is working within the so-called intergovernmental area. The article continues:
Such conventions may stipulate that the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to interpret their provisions and to rule on any disputes regarding their application, in accordance with such arrangements as they may lay down.
Denmark is rather sensitive when it comes to matters relating to citizenship, for example, which one would think would be well outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I suggest, however, with the support of quotations, that they certainly are not. Hon. Members may say that there is no compulsion on member states to be parties to the conventions. Tell that to those who were present at the Trevi discussions. Tell that to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We all know that if we are to have effective laws relating to policing and drugs, for example—something which we all wish to see inside the possible union—we must have a certain amount of co-operation. The only way in which that can be achieved

practically is by some sort of agreement. The pressure to adopt the conventions, subject to the European Court, will, I suggest, be politically impossible to resist.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman has almost given the game away. I think that he is jumping at shadows in terms of the fears that he has expressed. Article K3.2 distinguishes the intergovernmental co-operation therein described from the procedures under the European Community by giving the initiative to member states as well as to the Commission. It makes it clear that agreement to any convention must be unanimous. There is no question of majority or qualified majority voting. It makes it clear that conventions can be referred to the European Court of Justice only where there is agreement by the states that happen to be parties to the convention. It is—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member is beginning to make a speech. I think that he knows that in my book interventions should be short.

Mr. Evans: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is it.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I was saying that there is a channel of competence. It is true that agreement is required, but Ministers who have been to Brussels will know only too well that a ratchet applies to matters relating to European Community. Unanimity sounds fine; it sounds as though there is a veto once and for all. We know that it is difficult to withstand that procedure and that once there is agreement there is no going back. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there is sufficient inducement to agree to competence, to agree to an agreement within the ambit of the European Court. I use that as a trenchant illustration, I believe, of the degree to which the separation of the pillars and the trunk will not, in practice, be as people think.
The hon. Gentleman knows what happens when Ministers fly into Brussels having been briefed by civil servants at the last minute after a constituency meeting, worrying about this, that and the other. That is irrespective of party. The hon. Gentleman knows the Commission, the Council and the central institutions of the Community, with their staffing, knowledge and the Committee of Permanent Representatives, and all the things that go on. That is the effective centripetal drawing in of effective power which, I fear, will be given a boost by the treaty.
The process may have been even faster under the Dutch mark I treaty. The Government have probably slowed down the rate of acceleration that would otherwise have taken place, but there is still that progression to centrality.

Mr. Tim Devlin: What concerns me about what the hon. Gentleman is saying, along with so many of his colleagues on both sides of the Committee who are against the Community, is that they lack flair and imagination in seeing what the Community could do. For the Community to draw power to the centre for certain purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, in the past two weeks we have seen that we have no control over the merchant shipping fleets which pass through our waters and may come to grief on the rocks creating great


disasters. A European market into which the world has to sell is a much more powerful entity than a merely British one, is it not?

Mr. Spearing: I am surprised to be accused of not having much imagination. My trouble is that I have rather too much. However, I think that I am realistic. I do not see hobgoblins.
What is there to prevent every European nation, whether a member of the Community or not, acting separately by intergovernmental action, saying that they will not accept any tanker discharging in any of their ports unless, unless, unless, unless? We do not need a European Community to be able to do that. That could be done fairly soon. It could be done if the Ministers responsible to the House took action. Why do they not? It does not require a centralised Community bureaucracy.
I was not going to make this point because I wanted to be brief, but I shall do so in answer to the hon. Gentleman. British farmers find themselves having to demonstrate against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Do not the poor farmers realise that the power to decide what we do with our soil in agricultural terms went from the House in 1973 by majority vote? Apparently they do not.
During the enormously important worldwide negotiation on the economy under GATT, the Minister, then the President of the Agriculture Council, had to book into a hotel under an assumed name and bite his nails while an unnamed, virtually unaccountable EC official negotiated on behalf of all the members of the Community. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is right, let him get up and say so.

Mr. Devlin: He thinks that it is right. It is far better for the Community to negotiate GATT as a whole than to spin out the whole arrangement by perhaps another 10 or 15 years on each round simply because there are that many more parties to the agreement. Of course it is better that we negotiate as a single market.
7.15 pm
On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point about shipping, he simply described the position as it is now. The disaster that we are faced with at the moment occurred because a ship going from Norway, which is not in the Community, to Canada, which is not in the Community, did not have to meet the standards required in a British port because it was not going to a British port.

Mr. Spearing: There is nothing to prevent the Norwegians, if they so wish—I should have thought that they might, being a maritime power—agreeing to anything whether inside or outside the EC. I shall take up the matter with the Canadian High Commission because Canada is worried about the environment.
On the other point, the hon. Gentleman mistook what I was saying. If there is a single market by law and there is a negotiation under GATT, of course we must—unfortunately, from my point of view—negotiate as a Community. But we do not have to send in an unnamed official while the President of the Council of Ministers concerned has almost the status of an office boy on the edge, or so it looked. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants? I do not think so. That separates the elected person responsible to the people in this Parliament and in other

Parliaments, accountable in some way or another, from the officials of the Commission who have far too much power.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I said that I would not give way again and, in order to assist other colleagues, I must move on to the second part of my remarks relating to the so-called decision at Edinburgh.
I was at Edinburgh during the summit. I spent one evening in the company of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and 200 other people. We were both making our views known about the succession of treaties. One member of the multinational audience asked me what the hon. Lady was like. I said that she was Baroness Thatcher times two. That was met with disbelief, but I was believed when she made her speech. She was not in favour of these matters. Everyone knows my views. She said that we needed to get rid of the Community because it was a socialist plot. I said that the hon. Lady was wrong because I thought that it was a capitalist plot. I had the words of the treaty on my side. It requires
the free movement of capital and labour unless authorised to the contrary.
However, I said that we should compromise because we both agreed that it was a plot. We must remember the old succession, "I plan, you scheme and they plot". I suppose that that is what we all say about each other.
The decision at Edinburgh was surely about political power, because that is what the treaties are about. They are a map of political power; a proto-constitution taken as a library of treaties, including the Single European Act, bits of which are also lying around.
What does the Edinburgh decision do? Does it modify political union? I should have thought that it must; otherwise Mr. Schluter would not have been able to go back to Copenhagen satisfied that he had enough to be able to recommend a second round in Denmark. It must make some change. On the other hand, we are told that the decision does not change the wording of the treaty. If that is so, how can it have a different effect? I should like the Minister to explain that conundrum when he replies.
Many people say that the decision makes no difference. Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) quoted the German Chancellor and I shall do so again. In the Financial Times on 4 January 1993 the Chancellor is quoted as saying:
the European Community expressed their sympathy for Denmark's special reservations, but decided not to change the Maastricht treaty. Reopening negotiations was not, and is not, on our agenda.
I do not know who "our" is. Presumably it does not include Denmark. He continued:
In Edinburgh we therefore could go no further than to clarify the relevant treaty clauses to respond to the main Danish concerns. This purely declaratory 'decision' neither changes nor complements the treaty, and therefore does not require ratification by member states.
I think that everyone who is present now was present when, in reply to a point made by one of my hon. Friends, the Minister—having received some information—confirmed that declarations were not legally binding. There may be a problem in the translation, but it is clear that Chancellor Kohl does not want the declaratory decision that we are discussing to be legally binding in the sense that we have been told it is.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Gentleman quoted my right hon. Friend as having said that declarations were not legally binding. That is not quite what my right hon. Friend said. He was asked specifically whether the declarations attached to the treaty came within the ambit of the Bill, and the answer to that very precise question is an equally precise no.

Mr. Spearing: Well, we shall consult Hansard. I believe, however—although I am subject to correction—that, while protocols are legally binding, declarations in a treaty are not. That is laid down in the Vienna convention. Declarations of hope or intent, for example, cannot be legally binding, because people can change their minds —and that is quite right. None the less, some of us expected a protocol at least: I think that the Danes expected that. Such a protocol could have been added, and it need not have been very long.
Following what may have been skilful negotiation by our Prime Minister, we have secured certain clauses and derogations. Some people object to them, and I understand why. The Danes, however, want much more; they suggested, for instance, that changes applying to Denmark could also be applied to applicant states of the Nordic union, if they wished it. I understand that the decision concerned extends to no country other than Denmark, so one of its requirements has already gone out of the window.
Having asked questions about the declaration, I discovered that it did not need ratification. I was told by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office —a junior Minister—
The decision does not require ratification".
He went on to say that the decision had been made not by the European Council, but by
Heads of State and Government meeting within the European Council."—[Official Report, 17 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 356.]
As recently as 11 January, I asked the Prime Minister who had signed the decision, on behalf of all the nations involved. The Prime Minister replied:
The decision relating to Denmark was not signed."— [Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 554.]
I am not suggesting that every international treaty should be signed, but if I take a guest into the Strangers Cafeteria, I sign for it. We all sign for things all the time, do we not? We have to sign even for small transactions. Why did no one sign that decision? One would have thought that, if it is to be effective and applicable in international law—as the Prime Minister told us several times that it would be on 14 December—all possible steps would have been taken to ensure that.
According to information that we received recently, a ruling of the European Court of Justice—to which the Prime Minister referred repeatedly on 14 December; it sounds good, does it not?—currently binds only seven of the 12 members of the Community. Somone might ask, "How far are titles II, III and IV exclusively the Community's provenance, and how far are the other titles exclusively within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?" What if there are conflicting judgments about the interpretation of this so-called decision? Who will win?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked a pertinent question: whether the decision was registered with the United Nations as an international treaty. According to the most recent information that I

have received, my right hon. Friend asked the Foreign Office that question before Christmas, in which case it has had plenty of time to find the answer.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I can confirm that. I asked whether the decision, or treaty, was registerable, and whether it had been registered. I have not yet received even a holding answer, although I believe that it will arrive by van today, three days late. I do not know when the substantive answer will arrive.

Mr. Spearing: I do not see a Foreign Office Minister in the Chamber. I am sorry that the great Foreign Office, with all its Ministers, cannot provide someone to listen to what we are saying; but I am not surprised that, in a rather strange speech, the Minister made it clear that he did not want the matter to be reported to Parliament.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Is it not extraordinary that no Foreign Office Minister is present? My hon. Friend is raising points that are clearly not within the competence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is here to deal with European monetary union. These are serious matters, and it is outrageous that no Foreign Office Minister is listening.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The question of whom the Government put up to listen, or to speak on their behalf, is not a point of order for the Chair. No doubt Ministers will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Spearing: Thank you, Dame Janet—and I also thank my right hon. Friend for reinforcing my point. On an earlier occasion, I raised a point of order asking for a separate debate on these important matters; we are having that debate now. I pointed out then that I had written to the Attorney-General on 15 December, seeking information about the Edinburgh summit. I also asked him about the failure of the Foreign Office Minister to reply to points made in the previous debate. Many hon. Members will recall that famous occasion, when the Minister was apparently unable to reply to questions about justiciability. No wonder the poor chap could not answer; I did not think that there was an answer.
I took it on myself to write to the Attorney-General because I thought that he would know the answers to my questions. I requested a reply in time for today's debate, but so far it has not arrived. I believe that it will come tomorrow, but I am told that it will come not from the Attorney-General but from a Minister of State at the Foreign Office. It looks as though I shall have to write another letter. Not only have I had to write to the Attorney-General, who was not present for the previous debate, but no Foreign Office Minister is present today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman referred to the status of the declarations relating to Denmark. Many of us are concerned about what is happening in Denmark, and interested in the outcome of the next referendum. We do not know when that will take place; it will depend on what Government Denmark has after its current difficulties.
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Danish people may be faced with a false prospectus? They may well be given certain assurances which have no validity in law. If the matters concerned come before the European Court in the first instance, the declarations may well be set aside and


the Danish people may find that they have participated in a referendum on the basis of various assurances given to them by the Government of the moment which have no legal validity and could be dismissed by the European Court with the stroke of a pen.

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure that it would necessarily be for the European Court or even for the International Court of Justice at the Hague. That matter has yet to be decided—we do not know. If the House of Commons does not know, I fail to understand how the Folketing can know either. The House is surely entitled, as a provisional signatory to the treaty, to the same information as the people of Denmark. We have yet to decide whether we will have the same opportunities in the future—that comes in a different part of the Bill—to put the same question that was put to the people of Denmark. We may yet do that.
If Denmark is treated in that way—at least by a possible con; I put it in colloquial language—we, as members of the European Community concerned with the quality of democracy in the Community, have just as much right to know whether the decision taken at Edinburgh was genuine.
On the evidence before us, the chances are that it was not genuine. My evidence is the words of the Prime Minister himself. On 14 December, I asked him how the nature of the European union could not be affected if the declaration at Edinburgh was to be legally and justiciably effective. If it is not to have an effect on the treaty, what has it to be effective and justiciable about? There cannot be one without the other. The Prime Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman began with a fallacy … What was agreed was an intergovernmental binding decision, not a treaty. There is a clear distinction between the two."— [Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 37.]
I do not see a clear distinction between an intergovernmental, binding decision and what we know as an international treaty. Perhaps I had better ask the Prime Minister about that. It seems that we are in dangerous waters.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is not the most distressing part of much of this debate that we, as the tribunes of the people, are unable to decide such matters for ourselves? At every twist and turn, one is looking to the legal profession to tell us what it is that we think that we have decided in the name of the people. It seems that we have effectively copped out of making decisions on behalf of the people that we represent.

Mr. Spearing: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I will try to be a little imaginative and optimistic. In Britain, other than by treaty, the highest court is this House and another place. Is it not suspicious that, despite the hon. Gentleman's assertion about asking lawyers—I like to ask them things and obtain full explanations—no representative of the Lord Chancellor's Department is in his place? We can tell the people of this country that the fact of that absence should cause them to think very hard.
It may be that the Attorney-General's office would say, "This isn't really for us. We only deal with domestic law. International law is a job for the Foreign Office." That may be true, but where are the representatives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Is it not the height of ministerial arrogance that, during 10 or 15 minutes of

debate, the people of this country did not have a Foreign Office Minister present on the Government Front Bench to hear our remarks about international law?

Mr. Gill: Is it not almost irrelevant whether Ministers are present, because in the final analysis neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of State nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be the final arbiter? A court beyond our shores will decide such matters.

Mr. Spearing: That may be terrible at the moment, but if the House does not pass the Bill, that is not entirely a matter for the Executive in Whitehall—the princes of politics. It is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members. If we say no to any important part of the Bill, there is nothing to prevent an improved treaty coming before us next time. That has already happened in the case of Denmark—or is it an improved treaty? The very fact that we do not know about the change that the people of Denmark managed to effect, if it is a change, is itself important. That the whole thing was not dropped straightaway because there was no unanimity is also a tell-tale sign.
One major constitutional matter has so far eluded the House, the media, and most of the public. It is of such stratospheric constitutional significance that is is not visible from the Floor of the Committee. The treaty was discussed for 18 months or two years at intergovernmental conferences, summits, conclaves and other meetings. The mind boggles at the man hours that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must have put in. We had one version of the treaty, and then another. Then we had the treaty on European union, and a modification or not from the Danes. It went on and on.
That treaty of 134 pages was subject to ratification by the due constitutional procedures of each member state under article 236, but then one member said no. A few gentlemen and perhaps one or two ladies—I am not sure whether there are any lady Ministers—met for two days in Edinburgh and reached an overnight decision, without signature. They said, "We are going to change the treaty in respect of the obligations placed on one of our members."
If the Prime Minister is to be believed, they effectively changed the nature of the treaty, which is not to be ratified by the House or any other assembly of the people of the member states. If the Prime Minister is right and the nature of the change is justiciable, the treaty was changed —changed overnight by a group of people sitting in Edinburgh and deciding the way that the treaty should be changed.
It is not just a question of legislation. They do that in the Council, probably every week. It is not just the justiciability of the European Court or tax—they have those already. It is a matter of changing the effective constitution of the union. If that can be done virtually overnight by people sitting in Edinburgh, doing a deal, and changing the constitution of the total union that may be, surely that strikes more of the philosophy of ancient Rome than of the revolutionary and forward-looking philosophy that drove the people of Philadelphia into a different sort of constitution—had it been otherwise, I might not be speaking like this today.

Mr. Michael Spicer: First, let me say in response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I, too, recollect the Minister of State saying that declarations


were not legally binding. I listened rather carefully to that assertion. The hon. Member for Newham, South may have heard it before, but it was the first time that I had heard it said, certainly from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps the Minister of State made a mistake. I am sure that he will not wish to change the record, but he may wish to correct himself. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South: the Minister of State certainly said that in my hearing.
I support amendment No. 40 because title II is the instrument by which the jump is made irrevocably—which means for ever—towards a federal state of Europe. Hon. Members asked my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) what was the fundamental difference between the passage through the House of the Single European Act —and of earlier legislation in connection with that treaty —and the passage of the Maastricht Bill. The answer is precisely the word "irrevocable". We are to pass legislation that will bind future Parliaments. If there is a central element to our unwritten constitution, it is that one Parliament should not bind another. That is the new step that we are taking and it is the fundamental difference between the present Bill and everything that has happened before. That is the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford should have given in response to those who teased him by asking why he had voted in favour of previous legislation but proposed to vote against the Bill. It is a perfectly logical position to adopt.
For the most part, those in Britain who defend the treaty avoid conceding that to accept Maastricht is inevitably and irrevocably to accept the formation of a united states of Europe. As has been said already, others in Europe have no such reservations about accepting the essential federalist nature of the treaty. Indeed, to them, the federalist intent of Maastricht is its chief attraction. That was clearly stated by Chancellor Kohl in a speech made at the Bertelsmann forum on 3 April last:
In Maastricht we laid the foundation-stone for the completion of the European union. The European union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which within a few years will lead to the creation of what founder fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war: the united states of Europe.
The Chancellor of Germany is in no doubt about the intent of the Maastricht treaty and his interpretation of the treaty must readily be accepted as the correct one: article 8 of title II establishes the rights and duties of union citizenship. To be a citizen, one has to be a citizen of something; there must exist a state to which one belongs.
The path by which the federal state is to be established under Maastricht is clearly laid out—it is through the formation of a single currency.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to a statement made by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, in which he stated that it was his clear intention that there should be a united states of Europe. What Chancellor Kohl did not add—although it was certainly mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—is that the process will be irreversible. That is surely the fundamental point for the Committee to remember: what happens under Maastricht will be irrevocable and future Parliaments will not be able to overturn or change it. That

is why this debate is so fundamental and why it is critical that the people of Britain should have a say, by way of a referendum, in that decision.

Mr. Spicer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Maastricht is different from everything that has come before it because it is irreversible and irrevocable.

Mr. Dorrell: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. I understood him to say that the obligations that we are to take on under the Maastricht treaty are fundamentally different from the obligations that we took on under earlier treaties because they were irrevocable. Perhaps he would like to turn his attention to article 240 of the treaty of Rome, which says:
This treaty"—
the treaty of Rome—
is concluded for an unlimited period".

Mr. Spicer: The fundamental difference is clearly related to the single currency. Until now, it has always been open to Parliament—because it has not been bound by any previous Parliament—to pass legislation that has the effect of revoking earlier decisions made here. There are at least three qualities attached to the single currency which make its creation the fundamental step towards a federalist state.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend appears to have left the point that he was making earlier. So far, we have had about six or eight "crucial steps". My hon. Friend places far too much emphasis on what Chancellor Kohl said back in April; anyone can produce lots of speeches and high-falutin' rhetoric, but they do not necessarily signify. Moreover, the word "irrevocable" means little. Every piece of legislation that the House passes is irrevocable until it is changed. We do not have to start again with all the legislation on the first day of each Parliament. Finally, one does not need to have a state of which to be a citizen. The citizenship referred to in the treaty gives us certain additional rights on top of our British citizenship—in particular, the right to vote in local and European elections wherever one lives in Europe.

Mr. Spicer: I shall try to deal with my hon. Friend's points in sequence. She spoke of rhetoric. I sought to stress that people in Britain on the whole tried to avoid references to the federalist objective of the treaty—for obvious reasons, because, if the federalist objective were clearly pointed out, it would make the treaty extremely unattractive to most people in the country and, I suspect, to most in the House. I was merely saying that no such coyness exists in other countries or among their leaders —including, in the example that I picked, Chancellor Kohl of Germany.
I accept that if we were merely playing with words, my hon. Friend's point about the word "irrevocable" might have some validity. But the word is attached to the concept of a single currency and that is what will make the great difference, for the following reasons. Under most definitions of sovereignty, when a country passes over control of its coinage, all other forms of money or credit and its banking system, it has taken the essential step towards giving away sovereignty and the control of its economy. Moreover, in this case, it does so irrevocably. The establishment of a single currency is a meaningless


concept unless it is for ever—for eternity. That has profound implications for the sovereignty, rights and history of this Parliament.

Mrs. Currie: The word "irrevocable" needs to be challenged. We regularly sign treaties containing such words. The most significant treaty that we ever signed was that by which we acceded to NATO. That really changed a lot and constituents of mine have died doing what they could, as members of the armed forces, for NATO. That sort of thing was done without thorough debate in the House. I put it to my hon. Friend that nothing is irrevocable. It is often a good idea to get stuck into something, join in and be part of alliances, and do our utmost to make them work in our interests.

Mr. Spicer: I am in favour of alliances, but there is all the difference in the world. If my hon. Friend is basing her case on that particular argument, she has totally misunderstood the whole thrust of this treaty and the treaty of Rome. We are talking about a change in the law, which is a fundamentally different concept from an alliance such as NATO. We are talking about something which is totally and generically different.
It is extraordinary that my hon. Friend, who is intelligent and coherent on such matters, should raise the matter of NATO, which is an example of how we have created circumstances in the past which were open to change. This is different. We are about to determine the law of the land in a context in which we will be bound for ever.

Mr. Bill Walker: When the people of England and Scotland previously signed a similar treaty for a union they knew what union meant, and we meant it. That is exactly what union means today. Anyone who doubts the meaning of union should remember the reassurances that were given during discussions on the 1972 Act and the Single European Act in 1985. We were given assurances that union did not mean union. We now know that union does mean union because we are creating it.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: I shall continue, but I will give way in a moment.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is enjoying himself.

Mr. Spicer: I am certainly enjoying myself, although I am not sure whether others will let me go on protractedly for too long.
One implication of the irrevocable nature of what is involved in the treaty, and the fact that the sovereignty of Parliament will be removed, especially one Parliament's ability not to bind another, is to make spurious the argument that has been used against a referendum.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: I will give way in a moment. The argument against a referendum which has been used is that we should do everything through the House. I would certainly prefer that. However, part of the objective of the treaty is

to destroy the sovereignty of the House by removing the convention and history by which no Parliament binds its successor—

Mrs. Currie: That is nonsense.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend may say that it is nonsense. However, I give my views to the House and that is precisely what I think.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that we will maintain the tradition of the House that each hon. Member has the freedom to say what he or she likes, even if it is not popular with others.

Mr. Spicer: That particular freedom will be maintained. As I said, the freedom of the House to be totally sovereign within itself will be removed if we set up something irrevocably and for ever. That is the simple point that I am making. Therefore, to argue against a referendum on the grounds that the sovereignty of Parliament must continue is spurious.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am surprised by the argument that my hon. Friend has adopted because I know him well and I know that he has considerable constitutional experience. Does he not realise that it is a fundamental part of our constitution that no Parliament can bind its successor? Even if we sought to use this treaty or any other instrument passed through the House to try to bind our successors, we would not be able to do so. Therefore, it does not matter whether any treaty or any other obligation that we accept may or may not be without any time limit. By definition, it is impossible in practice and in theory to overturn the principle of the British constitution that no Parliament can bind its successor.

Mr. Spicer: I do not think that the European Court will accept what my hon. Friend has said. Once the European Court is faced with the law as defined under the Maastricht treaty, it will apply that law. Indeed, the Commission will also apply the law in so far as it has the legislative power to do so.
There is no question but that we are creating a law which will exist unless we build in some new powers of secession. If new powers of secession are not built in, we will have to comply with the law for ever because that is what the treaty and the single currency mean. That would be the case unless the law was changed by unanimous vote and a new treaty negotiated.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reinforced the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell the Committee what he thought would be the legal effect, as interpreted by the English courts, of the repeal of the European Community Act 1972.
While my hon. Friend is addressing that question, can he come back to what I asked him earlier? He argued that the Maastricht treaty imported a new principle in that it was irrevocable. My point was that exactly the same principle is contained in the treaty of Rome. There is no new precedent in the Maastricht treaty on the point that he is developing.

Mr. Spicer: I know that some lawyers take the view that we have already gone beyond the point at which we remain a sovereign country. The Minister has just said that he is


one of them. I think that most lawyers still take the view that the process of refining, withdrawing and revising parts of legislation which have been passed by the House remains open to us. Other lawyers dispute that. I simply believe that we have not yet passed the point at which we lose sovereignty.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Can I be clear to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way?

Mr. Spicer: I give way to the Minister and then to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is difficult to understand the new precendents which my hon. Friend seems to be reading into the Maastricht treaty. He has just referred to one of them. He will recall that in the Single European Act, which he and I supported, we approved the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. What did my hon. Friend think he was voting for at that time?

Mr. Spicer: If my hon. Friend is saying—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman continues, could I make the point that hon. Members must address the Chair? I have been treated to a succession of ministerial backs.

Mr. Spicer: If my hon. Friend the Minister is saying that, in effect, the single currency commitment already exists as a result of previous legislation, why did he make such a play on the opt-out clause which he achieved? I certainly do not accept it.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: No.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Perhaps the Minister should take note of article 5 of the Maastricht treaty. This will assist my hon. Friend. It says:
Member states shall take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any action which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives in this treaty.
Of course, if we are bound by the Maastricht treaty, we are bound.

Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a further point in the context of a single currency and its effect on the federal objective. If there is a single currency, there is, by implication, a single pricing system throughout the new federal state which is being established. There will be a single pricing system and a single currency, but not single wage levels. Indeed, there will be different wage levels and different economic states of development.
There will be misery and political disruption throughout the new state unless a single central compensatory authority with taxation and expenditure powers is established in association with a single currency. It is as logical as night follows day that the establishment

of a single currency should involve the establishment of a single taxation authority and a single economic authority. If that is not the foundation, the makings and the essence of a new sovereign state, I do not know what is.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Spicer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but after that I will not give way to anyone else for the time being.

8 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones: I wish to clarify the point that I sought to make to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet). When my hon. Friend and I voted for the Single European Act, we approved the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. The route to that economic and monetary union was not defined. Therefore, we were at risk that under article 235 progress would be made towards EMU. The advantage of Maastricht is that it defines what EMU is. Furthermore—this is the point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North—every time that EMU or a single currency is referred to either in the preamble or in the treaty itself, it is followed by eight magic words:
in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
That is a direct reference to our ability to opt out of that union. So we are in a stronger position now than when we voted for the Single European Act.

Mr. Spicer: I shall deal with the matter of opt-outs in a few moments. My hon. Friend answered his own point about whether everything was set in concrete. It was not. Some general objectives were set down in previous treaties and legislation. However, in the Maastricht treaty we are presented with the objective of a single currency.
The only point that I am making at the moment is that clear qualities are associated with the objective of a single currency which add up to a new federal state of Europe. That seems absolutely clear to me, especially on my last point about the essential addition to the single currency of a single economic authority with single taxation and expenditure powers. If that is not the essence of a single state, I do not know what is.
The question in my mind is therefore not whether Maastricht leads towards a federal state of Europe, but whether such a state and such a loss of national sovereignty is a good thing. I certainly recognise that the nation state is a relatively recent invention and that there is no eternal quality about the nation state. I suppose that in Britain it goes back to Henry VIII under certain interpretations. When Henry VIII said, "This realm of England is an empire", it was an act of rebellion. That was the formation of the nation state. I do not base my case on the eternity of the nation state.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point, I shall certainly give way. The question which I shall address after I have allowed my hon. Friend to intervene is whether now is the right point at which to abolish the nation state and move across to some other formation.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether we can knock a little issue on the head early on in the debate. The Government


have a little list of those who supported the Single European Act who now take a different view because they have learnt from experience that things are not as they were said to be at the time. If I could take my hon. Friend back to that time, when he was safely enmeshed in Government, those of us who opposed the Single European Act were told not to worry. The Government said, "It is only about a single market. There is a certain amount of qualified majority voting, but let us have a single market, which is greatly to the benefit of the United Kingdom. We have a veto on everything else. Do not worry, boys. There is nothing in it."
Now the Government are saying about the Maastricht treaty, "We have won all the arguments. We are going there. It is going our way." But look at the details, the text and the small print, because in two years the Government will come back and say, "You agreed to it at the time of the Maastricht debate."

Mr. Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is a variant of the Lord Denning argument. A tidal wave of legislation is about to swamp us. Some people take the view—I do not know whether the Minister of State is one of them, but he seemed to imply it at one point—that we have already crossed the point at which we retain any real sovereignty. Indeed, there are legal precedents for suggesting that, when this Parliament passes legislation, it is inferior to legislation which comes out of the legal institutions of the European Community.
So I agree with my hon. Friend entirely that because we are dealing with law this is the difference between treaties and alliances—the words matter. That is particularly so because we are dealing with an alien form of law—Roman law. As it is codified law, the words matter. That is the essence of the argument that we deploy. It so happens that the proposed new law sets up certain patterns which undermine the sovereignty of this Parliament. It sets up a new federal state of Europe. However, few Members of Parliament are prepared to accept publicly that that is what the Bill does, even though they support the treaty.
The question is whether the nation state still has a role. At a practical level, the idea of converging our economies —for example, by means of fixed exchange rates—must now have been discredited. Events surrounding the ERM and throughout the history of this century have proved that. The attempts to follow the gold standard were completely disastrous. One way of considering the single currency must be to consider it as an ERM in perpetuity.
As the concept of managing one's economy according to the objectives of someone else's economy has singularly failed, the idea that at this stage we can merge our economies through a single currency is foolish on the basis of historical precedent and practicality. However, there is surely a much more fundamental point. It is that we must ask what benefit we gain from the transfer to a new federal organisation.
Let us take the issue of democracy, which above all must concern Members of Parliament. Transferring the sovereignty and undermining the position of this Parliament in favour of an unelected central bank, an unelected Commission and an unelected court of law under Maastricht cannot be done lightly under any circumstances without some massive trade-off.
We know that the economic trade-offs of our arrangements with Europe are dubious. At present we

have a £10 billion trade deficit with Europe. I cannot see what benefits we shall achieve out of political union and the transfer of sovereignty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend talks about the transfer of sovereignty, but perhaps as important in the short term is the transfer of resources. Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, our membership of the ERM cost Britain 1 million jobs, with all the poverty and problems that that creates? Under the convergence and other proposals in the Maastricht treaty, we shall transfer further resources to Portugal, Spain and Greece—countries which are already depriving us of jobs and part of our manufacturing base. Does my hon. Friend consider that that is a sensible way to represent the interests of the people of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the costs are enormous. It is not just the £10 billion trading deficit with Europe. It is the £2 billion that we pay under various budgetary arrangements. My hon. Friend is correct that enormous costs were associated with the ERM. Some people have estimated that the most recent attempts to bolster the ERM cost more than £20 billion. So my hon. Friend has a good point.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: No. I shall make some progress and give way later if my hon. Friend still wishes to intervene.
It is sometimes said that the process laid down by Maastricht is so unrealistic and premature that it will fall apart under the weight of its own absurdity. It is said that the Germans in particular ultimately will not wear it, so we do not need to bother too much about what is going on.
The fallacy in that argument is simple; we have been debating it for the past 10 minutes. Once Maastricht is signed its provisions become the law of the land. The Commission and the European Court will take over from the politicians to ensure that the rules are applied. There seems to be much misunderstanding on that point both in Britain and in other countries. Let us take the example of the decision by the German Bundestag to ratify, subject to further consideration, the terms of the monetary union.
Germany's position would not be legal after ratification of the treaty. Unlike Britain and Denmark, Germany has no opt-out clause and it will be bound, for instance, by paragraph 4 of article 109j, which states clearly:
If by the end of 1997 the date for the beginning of the third stage has not been set, the third stage shall start on 1 January 1999.
There are no ifs and buts and no clauses built in to allow the Bundestag to have its say. That will become the law in Germany as well as here, which brings me to the question of the British opt-out. It is unimaginable to me that if Britain accepts Maastricht it will be able to opt out of the single currency. Other hon. Friends may develop a more legalistic argument on the matter, but it is common sense that it will be unimaginable for us to opt out.
If we ratify the Maastricht treaty, one of the tragic consequences will be that Britain will face the choice of sacrificing control over its economy, in the way that I have tried to describe, or of leaving the European Community. I cannot see how we could remain within the EC as the only country—other than Denmark, perhaps—committed to staying outside the single currency. In any event, it would be meaningless to do so because article 109m of title


II forces us to comply with EC monetary policy as if we were within the single currency. That is my answer to people who say that we will not have to go back into the ERM.

Mr. Dalyell: If all this is so imaginable, how are we to imagine that the hon. Gentleman remained a Minister in Mrs. Thatcher's Government for so long?

Mr. Spicer: I have been trying to answer precisely that question. In my view—and it is only one person's view —the treaty is fundamentally different from any other legislation that we have passed. Other people take a different view and even the lawyers argue about it. I am with the lawyers who say that we are about to take a step which, because of its irrevocable nature, will mean that we will lose our sovereignty. Ministers keep popping up and down and have said that some of the provisions go back a long way, but I take a different view. The treaty is a fundamentally different step.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does not Lady Thatcher take exactly that view—that the Single European Act, which she passed as Prime Minister, was entirely different because it was devoted to economics, whereas the treaty is intended to make us part of a federal political union? If Lady Thatcher takes that view, her Ministers of the day are also entitled to do so.

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
On the question of whether we will have to re-enter the ERM, one aspect of the Maastricht treaty which worries me is that it will force us to rejoin. Some hon. Members have said that that is not true, but article 109m clearly states:
Until the beginning of the third stage, each Member State shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest … From the beginning of the third stage and for as long as a Member State has derogation, paragraph I shall apply by analogy to the exchange rate policy of that Member State.
The opt-out in the appropriate protocol makes us fall within the category of member states who have derogations, so there seems to be little doubt that we will have to re-enter the ERM if we sign the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Dorrell: I should like to hear my hon. Friend develop that argument. He seems to interpret meaning in the words of article 109m that is not there. He says that it is accepted that if the United Kingdom exercises its right under the protocol and does not join monetary union, the provisions of article 109m would apply: that "exchange rate policy" is
a matter of common interest.
That does not mean that, merely because exchange rate policy is a matter of common interest, member states are obliged to join the ERM, nor does it state that anywhere in the treaty.
Secondly, paragraph 4 of the protocol governing the United Kingdom's position states, totally unambiguously, that if we choose not to join monetary union
the United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law.
Our national law makes no provision for an obligation to join the ERM.

Mr. Spicer: I am gratified at the way in which Ministers are popping up and down like yo-yos to join in the debate because they have been rather reluctant to debate these matters in public. That at least is a good development.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Minister on the question of the protocol, in paragraph 6 he will find that article 109m
shall apply to the United Kingdom as if it had a derogation.

Mr. Dorrell: indicated assent.

Mr. Spicer: Precisely. That means that from the beginning of the third stage, and for as long as a member state has a derogation, paragraph 1 shall apply by analogy to the exchange rate policy of that member state. Paragraph 1 talks about the common interest.
My hon. Friend the Minister may give us his opinion that the common interest does not mean that we will have to re-enter the ERM, but after we ratify the treaty his views will not matter. That is one of the problems. The views of the judges and of those people to whom the matter is appealed are what will count.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend invite the Government to get some independent advice? It is all very well for us to act as though we were well-qualified amateur lawyers. Most of us are doing so out of ignorance and prejudice. A definitive statement of how the Commission and the European Court interpret the matter is required. Mr. Martin Howe argues forcefully that we shall be obliged to join the ERM—after all, he comes from a family which has some prejudices on the issue. However, the Minister says that there is no chance of the United Kingdom being forced into the ERM. Definitive and objective advice is required, either from the Commission's legal department or from the European Court, so that we know what will happen.

Mr. Spicer: The one thing that cannot be said of my hon. Friend is that he is an amateur lawyer—he is extremely knowledgeable on the matter. After we have analysed the question, it will be handed to the European Court and to the Commission to determine. It will be for lawyers to figure out how to determine it, but it seems to me that the "common interest" could be interpreted by the court to mean that we would have to rejoin the ERM as other countries are doing so. My views are no more worth while than the Minister's, because ultimately the matter will be determined by the court.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that the question of whether there is a legal requirement for us to rejoin the ERM is an interesting argument, but, in practical political terms, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Maastricht treaty were ratified and the Bill were to become law, the Government would rejoin the ERM around the turn of the year because there would be no logic in their being part of the exercise without doing so?

Mr. Spicer: Yes, I agree that that would be part of the logic and part of the new Maastricht philosophy which would have been accepted.

Mr. Ray Whitney: My hon. Friend is being very generous in allowing interventions. I invite him to return to the phrase that is causing him so much serious


concern—article 109m. Is he saying that he foresees a court or an amateur or professional lawyer interpreting the phrase,
each Member State shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest
as the same as saying that each member state shall enter the ERM?

Mr. Spicer: That is one interpretation. I did not want to bore the Committee by reading out all of article 109m, but the next sentence states:
In so doing, Members States shall take account of the experience acquired in co-operation within the framework of the European Monetary System and in developing the ECU, and shall respect existing powers in this field.
In that context I could understand why lawyers might decide that that was tantamount to an instruction to go back into the ERM.

Mr. Marlow: The problem with all these treaties is that the same point is addressed in several different places within them. Article 102a, under the title "Economic Policy", states:
Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Article 2".
If we ratify the treaty we will commit ourselves to that. Article 2 states:
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union". How are we to have such an economic and monetary union without passing through the ERM first? Whatever the other opt-outs and bits in the treaty, if we agreed and ratified that part of the treaty it would be used against us by European institutions that want us to come along with them more quickly than we would want. They would say that we would have to get back into the ERM.

Mr. Spicer: That is why it is unimaginable that, having signed up to the treaty and become part of it all, we would then be able to exert opt-outs. We would have signed up to the objectives and philosophy set out in the treaty and to those institutions.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that something in the way in which the Government are putting over their case does not ring true? On the one hand, they have said that they intend that Britain shall be at the centre of Europe, but, on the other, they say, "Haven't we done well? We have got an opt-out from the single currency." If we exercise that opt-out and there is a single currency or even a joint currency of member countries and we are neither in that currency nor part of the ERM, we will not be able to claim that we are in the centre of Europe. We will be on the edge of Europe, as we always have been and always will be.

Mr. Spicer: One of the paradoxes of the entire debate on this matter and one of my major criticisms of it is that the full logic of what has been done has never been spelt out. Despite everything that I have said and the strong arguments held by many of my hon. Friends and by others, the question remains as to whether, politically, matters are now so sewn up in this country as to make further resistance and debate a waste of time.
In the weeks that lie ahead some people may wonder why those of us who oppose ratification of the Maastricht treaty will continue to argue our position hard and in great detail. We have powerful arguments to place on record. One of the features of the entire debate—acknowledged by

most dispassionate observers—is the fact that those of us who do not support Maastricht have made most of the running with the arguments in the past months. That has not necessarily happened because we are more assiduous than the treaty's defenders, but because that defence has been flawed in one crucial respect. Its defenders have not been prepared to argue for it in the only terms possible —on the basis that its avowed objective is a new, federalist state of Europe. There has not been so much coyness in other countries. I can respect the federalist position, but I do not accept it for the reasons that I have already given. I cannot accept or respect, however, the position of those who say that we can have Maastricht while at the same time retaining the sovereignty and independence of our democratic institutions.
People may still ask what is the point of resisting the united determination of those occupying the Front Benches to plough ahead with this treaty. It is a fact that the leaders of the three major parties are working together, either explicitly or implicitly, as they did, some might say to disastrous effect, over the ERM, and as they did in years gone by, with even more disastrous consequences, over the gold standard. I am beginning to wonder whether a new law of politics is about to emerge which dictates that when those on the Front Benches agree they are almost invariably wrong.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. Earlier my hon. Friend sought to explain what the common concern concept meant in the context of exchange rate policy. He said that under article 109m the exchange rate would remain a matter of common concern even if we exercised our right to stay outside monetary union. He said that he feared that lawyers might interpret that as a commitment to rejoin the ERM against our will. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) also suggest-ed that we should take legal advice on that point.
I can tell the Committee that we have, today, published legal advice on precisely that subject in the form of a memorandum to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. My hon. Friend may also like to consider that the commitment by member states to regard their exchange rate as a matter of common concern is not a recent invention, but was contained in article 107 of the treaty of Rome, which was signed more than 20 years before the ERM was invented. Therefore, it would he rather difficult to interpret that commitment, which dates back to 1958, as a commitment to join the ERM.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend may make that interpretation—

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully say that your instructions to Ministers to face you has also had the consequence of their turning their backs on the microphone. While it may, for reasons of your own, be an advantage for you, Dame Janet, to see Ministers, it is also desirable that we should be able to hear them.

The Second Deputy Chairman: When I made my request I was thinking in terms of a back clearly shown to me. I have not the slightest objection if Ministers face what I call the normal way. Perhaps, for the purposes of the microphone, that would be better.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The Financial Secretary has drawn the attention of the Committee to a memorandum that the Treasury has apparently published. Is that document available to the Committee, which is currently debating this rather important matter? I should be very pleased to hear that it is, but could I have your confirmation as to whether you are aware that that document is available not just to members of the Select Committee, but to this Committee?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have no knowledge of that and, if I heard aright, I am not sure that that is entirely a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Giles Radice: I believe that I can help you, Dame Janet. The first report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee was published today and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be able to obtain a copy of it from the Vote Office if he goes there now.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That seems to have settled the matter satisfactorily. Is the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) still speaking to the amendment?

Mr. Spicer: I am trying to draw my remarks to a close, but I have been intervened upon many times by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—obviously they are trying to filibuster.
Given the collusion, or at least the firm agreement, that seems to exist on broad matters of policy, particularly the issue now under debate, among those on the three Front Benches, one must ask why we do not recognise reality and accept that the best way in which to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House on Europe. One may ask why we do not shut up and get on with Third Reading. I venture to suggest that, were we to do so, no one would be more embarrassed than members of the Government who are committed to not having that Third Reading before the Danish referendum.
8.30 pm
Of course, the Danish referendum will now largely determine whether the treaty is ratified. The Danish Government are hard at work trying to persuade their countrymen of two things. The first is that at Edinburgh they achieved some sort of victory for Denmark. However, no less a person than Chancellor Helmut Kohl recently knocked that idea on the head in the article that was quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Today the Minister of State confirmed that there was absolutely no change in the treaty as a result of Edinburgh. Therefore, the question to be put to the Danish people will be precisely the same one and it will be about precisely the treaty to which they earlier said no.
Perhaps recognising the paucity of what was achieved at Edinburgh from their own point of view, the Danish Government have a fallback position—to persuade the Danish people of the dangers of standing alone against the rest of Europe. Fortunately, in this context, the British Government have already said very clearly that if Denmark rejects Maastricht, they, too, will reject it. In the meantime, the Danish people need to know that the debate goes on in Britain and in its Parliament—that in the run-up to their referendum they are not on their own. The candle of democracy still burns in the British Parliament.
That will be the message that will go out in the next few weeks. It is a very sorry state of affairs that it has come to this—that we shall now, in large measure, be playing the role of cheerleaders, depending for our future on the will of the electorate of another country. This choice has not been of my making or that of my colleagues. We must, however, work with events—whether they be the Danish referendum, the crumbling facade of the ERM, the growing unwillingness of the Germans to sacrifice control of the deutschmark, or the increasingly anxious expressions of the British people.
Time is required for these events to unfold and, in this country, for the details of the Maastricht treaty to be better understood. That is what the forthcoming debates will be all about. Let me state my position and what I take to be the position of my colleagues. Far from being a "little Englander", I am concerned, above all, to set the relationships between Britain and the other countries of Europe in the context of the high seas, of well-established international alliances and of a commitment to free trade and democracy.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I hope that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) will not mind if I do not follow on directly from his very lengthy and interesting tirade against the Maastricht treaty. No doubt, however, I shall pick up some of the points that he has made.
I want to begin by addressing those articles of the treaty that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I consider to be at the heart of what Britain stands to gain from the treaty and from what has come to be known as the Maastricht process—notably the aims expressed in title II of the treaty. Amid the seemingly never-ending torrent of prejudiced and selective information on this subject, people can be forgiven for overlooking—they may never even have been told—the content of this vital provision. I regard it as so important and so admirable that I shall quote it in full:
to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
That is an absolutely superb set of aims at the heart of the treaty. From Labour's point of view, it must be the most important part of the treaty. Indeed, as has already been said, it could have come straight from a Labour party manifesto. Any of my right hon. or hon. Friends could have written it. In fact, some probably have done when composing manifestos in the past. It is no surprise that this has caused such problems for Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who moved amendment No. 40 a very long time ago and whom I regard as the authentic voice of Conservative Members who oppose all matters Maastricht and European, rubbished these aims. He did so in the most eloquent, albeit disagreeable, terms. The heart of his argument was that article 2 seeks to fetter free markets and to prevent proper and responsible Government intervention in order to secure these very important objectives.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has talked, quite rightly, about the attraction of article 2. Surely he is aware that one of the weapons to be used to achieve these desirable objectives is the ERM. But the


ERM has created poverty, unemployment and industrial collapse in many parts of the European Community—not least in the United Kingdom. Perhaps as a result of the ERM the United Kingdom has lost 1 million jobs.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but many Labour Members take the view that poverty and unemployment in the United Kingdom has more to do with the policies of the Government and the Conservative party than with our membership of the ERM.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a mixture of factors here. Undoubtedly one of these is the failure of Government policies over a long period, but another is the obligations of the treaties that we have entered into. The failure of Government policies, the appalling weakness of the British economy and the consequent total inability of Britain to stay in a fixed exchange rate system without sustaining massively high and unnecessary unemployment is a peculiar and lethal mixture. My hon. Friend's declaration about article 2 is fine—nobody objects to that—but the trouble about the mention of high employment as an objective is that nowhere else in the 130-odd pages are those words repeated. All the rest is about particular policies of economic and monetary union that would work absolutely in the opposite direction.

Mr. Mandelson: I respect the views of my right hon. Friend—indeed, he is a genuine and long-standing friend. However, others take the view that the economic problems that he describes are due equally to the failure of Ministers to use the opportunities that are available through greater European integration and co-operation between Governments, which is precisely what the Maastricht treaty seeks to expand and strengthen.

Mr. Butcher: If Ministers fail, if the electorate does not like what they do, they can be sacked at a general election. But after this treaty has added to the rolling progress of Europe we shall not be able to sack the Ministers responsible for ruining the economy. The point is that our being one twentieth of a democracy will eliminate a major part of our power to control our own rate of employment or unemployment, our own interest rates and our own dynamic activity in the economy. The Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal party will lose that right for ever.

Mr. Mandelson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view. I do not believe that we are simply victims of economic circumstances. I do not think that we are offering ourselves as corks to bob along the surface of the stormy Maastricht treaty, unable to formulate policies within the framework offered by the treaty to overcome precisely the economic and employment difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has identified. Political hands are indeed very important, and I believe that political hands other than those currently in power in this country, resting on a ratified Maastricht treaty, would create very many more opportunities for economic and social progress. For that we must wait for the next election.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) implied that nowhere else in the document on Maastricht is there a reference to the goal of lasting high

employment. However, there is an agreement on social policy which has that precise aim, which the Government have opted out of but which a future Labour Government can opt into. Article 1 of the agreement on social policy says:
The Community and the Member States shall have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment.

Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, characteristically, has his finger and eye on all the provisions of the treaty, not just those which some other hon. Members would selectively pick out to serve their jaundiced points of view.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I make a little progress.
If the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has brought out so successfully from the treaty were at the front of Ministers' minds at recent European Council meetings, we would have had a different outcome from those meetings. It is shameful that Ministers, both at Birmingham and subsequently at Edinburgh, did not have those provisions at the forefront of their minds when addressing the appalling mass unemployment that exists throughout Europe. Instead of following that course, at the Birmingham summit our Government and the President of the Council refused even to place the need for European recovery on the agenda. At Edinburgh, the self-same President relegated discussions on unemployment and the need for economic recovery to talks over lunch and then forced the Council to agree a diluted set of measures arid a diluted European recovery programme, which the Commission had originally sought to put before the Council for agreement. That is a shameful record and a tragic indictment of the Government's economic policies. Moreover, it is a disagreeable and disgraceful indictment of their record throughout their presidency of the European Council and how they seek to lead policy and debate on European matters in this country.
Possibly to an extent against their better judgment and will, the Government have been forced to sign up to first-rate articles at the head of that treaty which Opposition Members should applaud. We should not jeopardise that very important gain but should do everything in our power to strengthen and further it. However, it is only a start. The treaty provides us with a framework for further progress. I do not regard the treaty as an end in itself. I do not put out the flags and celebrate with beer and sandwiches the fact that we have arrived at last and have full employment and social progress now and for ever more simply because we have signed on the dotted line. The treaty is a framework—a start.
Articles 2 and 3, which some hon. Members have subjected to so much textual and literal analysis, are not a set of policies. They must now be hammered out on the basis of the articles and titles that have been agreed. They depend in turn on the policies that stem from the treaty—the policies that allow national Governments to develop and implement them within the framework of the treaty. They must now be hammered out within national Parliaments and Governments and between national Governments. The fight for the full implementation of the


treaty following its ratification will only begin once ratification has taken place. The way in which national Governments take those decisions and seek to implement the treaty will shape economic policy making post-Maastricht, and so much depends on that if we are to realise the treaty's aims.
The treaty is permissive and sets a direction. It encourages and directs us to hammer out policies of a particular nature, with goals to which we strongly subscribe, but the proof of Maastricht will be in its implementation.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend says that the treaty is permissive. Does he agree that, on economic and monetary union, leaving aside the opt-out negotiated by the Government, it is certainly not permissive? It means irrevocable progress towards economic and monetary union.

Mr. Mandelson: Yes, which I strongly support.

Mr. Davies: But it is not permissive.

Mr. Mandelson: The framework permits the hammering out of economic policies, guidelines and decisions which have yet to be discussed. My right hon. Friend must allow me to continue to make the case as I wish— [Interruption.] I believe that the attainment of economic and monetary union is desirable and necessary. I remind my right hon. Friend that that view is shared by the overwhelming majority of those who attended and were represented at the Labour party conference last autumn—[Interruption.] I shall not be disrupted by points about how we arrive at our votes. Some people like to trumpet votes in favour of matters with which they agree but when they disagree with the vote, they prefer to hide it under the nearest seat. I am at least consistent in those matters. It has been my privilege for a long time to adhere to and trumpet party policy in the series of roles that I have had within my party.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the mandatory obligations under the second article, but if he refers back to the treaty of Rome he will find similar mandatory obligations there. That treaty was ratified 36 years ago and there has been ample time to hammer it out, but what has been achieved?

Mr. Mandelson: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, I shall take from it a reinforcement of my view, which is that those matters are in political hands and depend on political judgments and decisions. If the politicians are lacking, so will be the implementation of agreements forged between Governments.
The priority to be given to growth, employment and closing the gap between rich and poor regions is important to the Labour party.

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry, but I must carry on. I shall give way later.
The means of achieving those priorities must be fought for in the implementation of the Maastricht treaty. All is

to play for, but one makes a decision, one forms a judgment, about a treaty like this: will the treaty and its implementation help or hinder in the attainment of those goals? The judgment that I and my party have reached is that the treaty will help us in pursuit of those goals—growth, employment and closing the gap between the rich and poor regions. That, I believe, is and will remain a settled policy for my party.
Therefore, the platform upon which the Labour party stands is not simply the treaty's articles or titles alone. They are the skeleton of the treaty. The platform on which we stand is what I could describe as "Maastricht-plus", the flesh which must be added to the skeleton of the treaty—the economic policies that are required in Britain and throughout Europe to enable our country to compete and to grow without being blown off course, as we have so often been before, by recurrent currency speculation, by inflation risks and by deflationary pressures, and in the process to rid the continent and, above all, our own country of the scourge of mass unemployment.
For the goals of economic and monetary union to be fully realised, there must be a strategy—I fully accept this and believe it to be the case—to build on the treaty's strengths as well as to combat its weaknesses. What is the key to this? What is the Maastricht-plus that we need to put in place, round which core we can construct a strategy to attain those economic and employment goals which are the end of the creation of economic and monetary union? The answer lies, in my view, in the economic as opposed to the monetary wing of the provisions of economic and monetary union, economic provisions and proposals which for some reason are frequently and conveniently ignored by some of the treaty's opponents in making their rather prejudiced case against the treaty.
The key is the requirement of member states, set out in the treaty, its provisions and protocols, to co-ordinate their economic policies within a framework called the economic policy guidelines which national Governments are obliged to draw up in the framework provided for in the treaty, drawn up by the Commission and adopted by qualified majority vote in the Council. These guidelines will be set in accordance with the treaty, with a view to advancing those economic objectives of the treaty which are set out in article 2, which is certainly not monetarist or Thatcherite or rightist in any shape or form and one which could have come from the lips of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Moreover, the treaty provides for a regular evaluation of the extent to which these policies, which have been hammered out and put together within the economic policy guidelines that are a feature of the Maastricht process, and the economic developments throughout the Community are consistent with these guidelines. In other words, they will keep under permanent review—the Commission working together with the Parliament and the Council—how these goals are being realised, whether we are making progress towards them, how well we are performing in attaining the objectives set out in article 2, and whether we need to make any adjustments to our policy in order to boost that performance and realise those objectives.
Furthermore, there will be crucial opportunities for political pressure—because this is what it is all about—to be exerted to achieve economic policy making, both by national Governments and Governments working in concert throughout the Community, not only in the


interests of individual countries but in the interests of the Community as a whole. It is not hard, for example, to see how this kind of economic policy making, based on a commitment to policy co-ordination and conducted within the framework of common objectives set out in the treaty, would have produced a very different course for German fiscal policy and interest rates from the damaging one followed in recent months.

Mr. Peter Hain: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I will give way in a moment. If we had had that framework in place, if we had secured that co-ordination and that altogether saner way of conducting our policies, we would not have the economic problems that have been generated by German policies. We would, on the contrary, have had a Europeanising of German policy which would certainly have served us and Europe very much better and also, in the medium and long term, the German people themselves.

Mr. Hain: The comments of my hon. Friend about the Europeanisation of Germany's economic policy are welcome and I agree with them, but he is quoting selectively from the treaty. He has referred to article 2, what I call the "sunny weather and cold ice cream" clause, the kind of clause that no one can disagree with because its general sentiments are admirable. Let us look at the implementation of the economic policy to which he refers, and particularly paragraph 2 of Article 3a. It refers to an economic policy based on
the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ECU, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability"—

The Chairman: Order. The whole point of interventions is that they are brief, succinct and certainly not repetitious.

Mr. Hain: I take your guidance, Mr. Morris, but—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Mandelson.

Mr. Mandelson: Thank you, Mr. Morris. I am sure that this is an argument that my hon. Friend and I can pursue at greater length, possibly over a cup of tea, later.
The point that I would like to stress now is that in the macro-economic sphere, in macro-economic policy-making, Maastricht offers us clear gains for sane and enlightened conduct of policy. The extent to which we are successful in cobbling together sane and enlightened policies depends on the actions, decisions and judgments of politicians; everyone is fallible, we are only human. But what we are talking about is a framework and whether we have in place a framework that allows us to behave in a sane, rational and enlightened way. I believe that the treaty gives us that framework.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend talks about economic policy. Does he not agree that the problem with the Maastricht treaty, as with Germany, is that monetary policy is not in the hands of politicians, but economic policy is? That policy is codified in the Maastricht treaty, which will present the problem.

Mr. Mandelson: Whatever the advertised strengths and independence of the Bundesbank, I think that politicians in Germany would be surprised to hear that they have absolutely no influence in German monetary policies.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. German politicians fixed the terms of the German monetary union, which has been so disastrous, not the Bundesbank, which had a sensible policy.

9 pm

Mr. Mandelson: I recognise that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have fears about the monetary policy. Anxieties about the possible deflationary effect of the treaty have been expressed in the debate, as they have been before and will no doubt be on many occasions in future.
I understand those fears, which are real, but are hugely exaggerated to serve a political argument. They represent a highly partisan and coloured view of the treaty and the Maastricht process. Those fears exist, although we should separate them in our minds from the parody of objections contrived by those who are not just anti-Maastricht, but fundamentally anti-Europe and are refighting a battle over our entry in the European Community that was won 20 years ago.
Many such fears focus on convergence and the terms under which we move towards economic and monetary union. I do not wish to speak at great length on the convergence criteria as that issue was addressed in detail and with considerable eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) when he spoke from the Front Bench. However, I shall reinforce his views. I strongly believe that member states' readiness for EMU must be tested, not only by the narrow, financial criteria based on interest and inflation rates, and the fiscal deficit—which are constantly mentioned by the treaty's opponents—but on the readiness and convergence of the real economy.
Two important additional criteria must be considered and must lie at the heart of the convergence process and our approach to it. Those criteria relate to the performance of our economy, notably the levels of unemployment and investment. I strongly echo the repeated calls from Opposition Members for precisely those economic, industrial, training and skill-raising policies of investment in the infrastructure and human resources throughout our economy, which will improve the performance and strength of our economy. That will enable convergence to take place expeditiously and smoothly.
Fulfilling those crucial additional criteria relating to employment and investment is central to the Maastricht-plus programme advocated by Opposition Members. We must ensure the full implementation of the Delors 2 proposals for financing regional development and social cohesion—factors which are so important for the regions of our country, such as the northern district which contains my Hartlepool constituency. We must raise the level of investment and employment throughout the country if we are to secure convergence and succeed in meeting the criteria that will be applied as we move towards economic and monetary union. I hope that Conservative Members and, certainly, Opposition Members will share my view and support the crucial initiatives required to strengthen the competitiveness, performance and investment of the real economy in this country.
In addition to the views and fears expressed about the convergence criteria, two other types of fears and principal objections to the treaty are made, particularly by some of


my right hon. and hon. Friends. The first is that EMU would mean a Europe dominated by unaccountable bankers and the second is that, under the treaty's provisions, member states would have to cut public expenditure.
First, I shall address the issue of the so-called bankers' Europe. It is said that the proposed central bank system would have the primary objective of maintaining price stability and counter-inflation policies which, in the view of those who advance that argument, would be deflationary. The system's independence would ensure that it followed policies that could not be influenced. The arguments are presented in a way that leads one to assume that the policies would be uninfluenced by any other economic goal or consideration. Therefore, the entire central banking system would be biased against growth and employment and in favour of tight and rigidly applied monetary policies whose sole aim was deflation. Finally, the relevant national central banks, rather than the European system of central banks, would have to mirror those provisions and be equally independent.
To the best of my ability, I have looked into the matter with care. I have read the treaty and all the comment on it. The argument that I have outlined is based on a selective and misleading reading of the treaty. The proponents of the argument speak about the primary objective of the European central bank system and some have said that that is its only objective. It is easy to slip from one word to the other, from primary to only, transforming the meaning and intent of the treaty.
Article 105 sets out the price stability objective. It also states that the European system of central banks
shall support the general economic policies".
It does not mention only the narrow monetary aim of attaining price stability but refers to
the general economic policies in the Community … as laid down in Article 2.
I quoted that at the beginning of my speech.

Mr. Shore: The important words are the connecting ones to
the objective of price stability
and the other aims of the Community. Those important words are
without prejudice to the objective of price stability".
That is not to say that that is the only aim, but it clearly establishes that it is the major aim, the primary aim, of the European bank.

Mr. Mandelson: I quoted the article properly. It refers to
The primary objective".
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not argue, as was argued earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that price instability is almost desirable. It has never been my party's approach to policy making to regard price instability as going hand in hand with fast growth and high employment. In my experience, precisely the opposite is the case. Price instability goes hand in hand with unemployment and subsequent deflation.

Mr. Shore: That experience is an inevitable consequence of my hon. Friend's age. The only period of price stability that I can remember was during the 1930s when there was mass unemployment. We have not had price

stability under any post-war Government and, as we all know, all periods of price stability have been brought about by massive deflation.

Mr. Mandelson: Not for the first time, my right hon. Friend has outclassed or upstaged me in terms of his years. I cannot compete with him on that basis.

Mr. Radice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: Of course.

Mr. Radice: I remind my hon. Friend of the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) when he was a Minister in the 1960s. At that time inflation was low, as was unemployment. There can be a relatively stable price system at the same time as relatively low unemployment. That is the experience of our respected right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mandelson: I readily—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that we shall not explore the 1960s. We are on amendment No. 40.

Mr. Mandelson: Speaking on behalf of the forward-looking and modernising—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In advance of the 1960s, in the days of Selwyn Lloyd, we had precisely the same phenomenon of stable prices and a prosperous country.

Mr. Mandelson: Bring back Selwyn Lloyd, in whatever guise.

Dr. Roger Berry: What policies would my hon. Friend pursue to achieve price stability or zero inflation, and what would be the effect on employment and economic growth of those policies?

Mr. Mandelson: I think that that would—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member should not be tempted down that route.

Mr. Mandelson: I shall not be tempted to follow that course, Mr. Morris. I merely refer my hon. Friend to the latest policy documents that have been issued by the Labour party and the policies that will be revealed next week as we prepare our ground for our pre-Budget campaign. I am sure that enlightenment will follow.

Mr. Andrew Smith: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I give way to my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Smith: I return to the 1930s, as it were, and to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Is it not the case that in the 1930s prices were falling? A central bank operating under the injunction to sustain price stability would have had to adopt an expansionary monetary policy, which would have regenerated the economy, stopped prices falling and been good for employment.

Mr. Mandelson: With respect for you, Mr. Morris, I shall not pursue the matter any further. I merely say that the points that have been made in interventions are absolutely right and apposite.
I shall move on to make two final points—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbyn: It is an apposite point—

Mr. Mandelson: I am sure that it is.

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend tell us how he proposes to influence a European central bank that is composed of bankers who are appointed for eight years, who are answerable and accountable to nobody and whose policy objective has been set down? How does he propose to influence them when there is no mechanism to allow that to happen?

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend's intervention was genuinely apposite. It can be dealt with now and not over a cup of tea later.
First, decisions and jugments will be taken and made within the framework of a politically determined economic strategy within economic policy guidelines in a way that I have already described. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present for the earlier part of my speech. These matters would be considered politically within the economic policy guidelines that are a feature of the treaty.
Secondly, such matters would be co-ordinated through the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers. Thirdly, important decisions, such as the control of the exchange rate, would remain with those Ministers, and would be politically controllable to a large extent, albeit in a different way. At the end of the day, decisions would be determined politically and would be in the hands of Ministers. The question is which Ministers, and that is a wider and separate issue which we have dealt with during the debate.
My next point concerns not the system of European central banks but our national central bank. I can imagine no circumstances, and certainly no reading of the treaty, that yields the conclusion or inference that our own national central bank, however independent, would go entirely unconstrained by some element of political control under any Government of any party, just as the German Bundesbank does not go entirely unconstrained by political influence exercised by duly and properly elected Ministers.

Mr. Marlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being very patient and decent. I draw his attention to article 107 which says:
When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty … neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body.
So how accountable are they?

Mr. Mandelson: The truth is that they are somewhat accountable and should be more accountable. It is precisely the aim of the Opposition's policies and proposed amendments to the Bill to increase and enhance that political accountability and to strengthen that political framework within which decisions and the operation of the national central bank, as well as the system, take place.
Just as the German Bundesbank has, by law, to take account of the views of duly elected Ministers and politicians, so would our own independent national central bank, and so, too, would the European system of central banks as a whole.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that if that part of the treaty to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred was amended by the House and the matter was taken back to the German people, they, in their legitimate pride in the independence of the Bundesbank, would without doubt reject the treaty. It is no good pretending and fuzzing this over. Is it not the case that the Bundesbank has an obligation to take account of political views, but it is an independent bank? If the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party seek to alter that independence in the European central bank that will be the end of the treaty.

Mr. Mandelson: I do not accept the premise of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a myth that the Bundesbank is totally independent and entirely uninfluenced by Ministers and by political considerations. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to create that view. He wishes to present the treaty and the Maastricht process as some sort of appalling monster that will devour Economic and Employment Ministers and lay bare the continent of Europe so that the outcome of the implementation of the treaty and the Maastricht process is the exact reverse of what we want to achieve, and what I firmly believe we will achieve if we move towards economic and monetary union and the full and proper implementation of the treaty.

Mr. Macdonald: I do not expect my hon. Friend necessarily to agree with my view here, but sometimes the whole question of independence of the central bank is rather exaggerated and overrated. My hon. Friend has already given the example of the German Bundesbank and the way in which it undoubtedly takes some guidance from the German Government. The independence of the American Federal Reserve did not impede the pursuit of a new deal programme in the 1930s by the Democratic party. The Swedish central bank has been independent since, I think, the 16th or the 17th century and that has not impeded the pursuit of socialism in that country. Therefore, the question of independence is sometimes rather exaggerated.

Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is nothing automatic in the creation of a set of institutions which means, as sure as day follows night, that the policy prescriptions will be negative, deflationary or whatever. The fact is that institutions do not automatically or inevitably lead to any development; the political decisions that are made within the economic and monetary framework that is clearly established in the treaty will determine how those institutions perform, and whether they help or hinder the process of employment creation and growth that Opposition Members want.
The first principal objection to the treaty related to the establishment of a "bankers' Europe"—not an attractive term, but one with which we have effectively dealt. [Interruption.] It may not have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it has certainly been dealt with to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), whom I regard as a bit of a pushover. The second principal objection relates to the argument that the implementation of the treaty would result in a cut in public spending.
That, too, does not strike me as an automatic or inevitable consequence of the treaty. It is our job to ensure that it is not. The argument is based on article 104c, which establishes restrictions on Government borrowing under


economic and monetary union and sets a target for the deficit: it should not exceed 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. Overall Government debt should not exceed 60 per cent. of GDP.
It is clear, however, from any reasonable reading of the treaty, and from any reasonable interpretation of the way in which politicians—separately, jointly and severally—might seek to implement its provisions, that the rules are very flexible. The main requirement in relation to the deficit is for progress to be made towards the target.

Mr. Rowlands: IMF!

Mr. Mandelson: I must say that I would rather have the economic policy guidelines of the European Community and the framework of joint policy making prescribed by the Maastricht treaty than the IMF on my back again.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I give way.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must pay attention, and make it clear to whom he is giving way. He sat down without making it clear whom he wished to take the Floor.
The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for nearly an hour. I must ask him to concentrate—but I now understand that he wishes to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It should be said, in all fairness, that he has been subjected to many interventions.
The treaty prescribes a 3 per cent. limit, along with the penalties that would be incurred by Governments who exceeded that limit. The employment position is spelt out in very general terms, but the same does not apply to the 3 per cent. limit. In recent months, a socialist Government in Spain decided to cut public spending substantially, using the 3 per cent. limit although the treaty is not yet in force. They say that they want to implement economic convergence as quickly as possible. If a socialist Government are willing to do that, what would a Government such as ours do if the treaty were in force?

Mr. Mandelson: It is an illustration of what the politicians and Ministers in the Spanish Government chose to do. The operative word is "may"—they chose to do it for whatever reason that was relevant either to the circumstances of their domestic economy or to any other consideration. If they pray in aid the treaty's terms, provisions and convergence criteria to justify their actions, that is up to them. The crucial point is that those are political decisions—judgments formed by Ministers.
Such decisions should not be taken under the treaty in isolation from any other consideration of the economic policy, guidelines, and framework prescribed by the treaty, and it is up to national Governments to make it clear that they see the 3 per cent. deficit target as something at which they will aim and make progress towards, but which will not be rigidly applied—as is their right. It would only be operable over the time of an economic cycle.

Mr. Denzil Davies: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry, but it is 25 minutes past nine—and although you, Mr. Morris, were not fair when you said that I had been speaking for one hour—

The Chairman: Order. I said that the hon. Gentleman had been speaking for nearly one hour.

Mr. Mandelson: Nearly right, Mr. Morris. Before I use up any more of your patience, I will conclude—if you do not mind.—[Laughter.] I said "if you do not mind" because I have received some encouragement to speak considerably longer, with what ulterior motive I do not know and can only guess at.
I will make three points in conclusion. First, our overriding aim is to make the treaty and the whole Maastricht process into what most of its authors wanted—an engine for sustainable growth, not an instrument of deflation in this country or any other member state. Taking the requirement of economic policy co-ordination, a medium length of time, and the properly defined nature of the convergence criteria described gives us the scope to pursue policies that will achieve that objective in practice.
Secondly, the treaty is not a set of commands. It is not immutable. Its terms are not set in tablets of stone. The treaty specifically provides for the further development of its provisions—for example, the replacement of the protocol of convergence by appropriate measures to govern the operation of convergence in practice. The treaty is capable of change, of evolving, and of being turned into an instrument of our need and desire to serve our national purposes and those of the Community.
Above all—and I make no apology for concluding on this point—it is the political nature of national Governments and the political balance of forces within Europe that will determine the success or otherwise of the Maastricht project. It is not the dots, commas, and every letter of the treaty's articles and titles that will determine whether the project is a success. That will depend on politicians taking political decisions, having formed political judgments.
Maastricht is an instrument to be used, honed, developed and bent to the economic needs of the Community. On that basis, I regard it not only as a wholly necessary and desirable further stage in the evolution of the Community of which I want this country to be at the heart but an absolutely necessary and important condition for the economic progress within this country that I and members of my party want to achieve.

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to join the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in welcoming the Maastricht agreement and to endorse the emphasis that he placed throughout on the need to fight unemployment. But that objective—which all Conservative Members share—is in direct conflict with the support of the hon. Gentleman and his party for the provisions of the social chapter: whatever the extent of its impact, that chapter will undoubtedly have a negative impact on employment.
I agree that the Committee should reject the amendments in the group, which are of a broad and sweeping nature and which, in effect, amount to a rejection of the Bill. I find that surprising, given that not so long ago, on Second Reading, the House voted by a majority of 244 for the principle of the Bill. Moreover, all three major parties fought the general election on a campaign programme that endorsed the Maastricht treaty.
Both today and in our debates before Christmas we have heard hon. Members—and some right hon. Members—on both sides of the House attempt not only to stop the clock but actually to move it back. Some hon. Members have a long tradition of being wrong about Britain's role in Europe. I am more concerned about the position of hon. Members who, over the years, have voted to support Britain's adherence to the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, qualified majority voting and the rest—which we have already discussed at length this evening and on which I shall not therefore dwell—but who are now finding excuses to move away from the position that they endorsed.

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not rise to defend myself, because I am not one whose position has changed. I should have thought, however, that the essential ingredient of parliamentary democracy is that when hon. Members think that something is wrong, they should admit to it and say, "Perhaps I made a mistake." If we do not do that, what is the point of our debates?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). But most of us find those hon. Members' position odd because at the time when they voted to support Britain's involvement, the arguments for our playing a positive role in Europe were somewhat weaker than they are now. As the years go by and as views in Europe develop, the argument for Britain's playing the part in Europe that the Government advocate for it grows stronger.
Of course we understand concerns about "federalism", which I would call centralisation—there is a translation problem because the word "federal" means different things to different nationalities. But there is and always will be an unashamed battle between those who envisage a centralist western Europe and those of us who do not. We should remember the lessons of the past 12 months—the success of Maastricht and the achievement of turning it away from the direction in which the original Dutch draft was headed and into the agreement that finally emerged. Public opinion has been demonstrated not only in the Danish referendum and the French vote but in Germany and in many other parts of Europe and there is clearly a strong feeling that people do not wish their national identities to be submerged. That should encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and any other doubter who believes that the Maastricht process is a remorseless juggernaut moving in one direction alone.
Some of my hon. Friends give the impression that they are living in a cloud of their own making. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) spoke of the abolition of the nation state. I wonder where he has been for the past 10 or 12 months. Let him go to France and tell any Frenchman that he voted for Maastricht, albeit narrowly. We understand that the French referendum involved many other issues and was certainly not on the Maastricht treaty. If my hon. Friends suggested to any Frenchman that he was moving towards the evolution of the nation state, my hon. Friends know the sort of answer that they would get. The achievements must not be underrated.
The concept of subsidiarity was an easy concept to mock. Subsidiarity is a difficult word. No one could find a satisfactory substitute for it. Gradually, as a result of the

steps that were taken and the efforts led by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, the concept of subsidiarity has been accepted as part of the European scene, and increasingly will be so. We should take account of that and take pleasure in it. No one can deny that there will be difficulties in converging the existing 12 member states and in enlarging the Community in the future, but the objective is worth while and important.
It is important that the House considers carefully this Bill, which, although it is short, is undoubtedly crucial. The procedural difficulties in the Bill are not great, and the impact of unnecessary delays in the passage of the Bill is sometimes overlooked by some hon. Members.

Mr. Spearing: I agree that the Bill is short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the analogy that it is nothing but a pipeline which connects us legally to the obligations in the treaty? Does that not mean that we need to examine carefully the complex legal obligations, especially those contained in the titles which we are now debating? Ideally, we should re-examine the treaty line by line and find out what it is about. Without such an examination, we do not know what the treaty is about.

Mr. Whitney: We all know that too much logic leads to serious trouble. If the hon. Gentleman pursued his argument to the logical conclusion, we would not stop at the 130 pages in the Maastricht treaty. Almost every paragraph in the treaty takes us back to the treaty of Rome, so this treaty must be limited. We want to amend the appropriate parts of the British law. Although that fundamental is important, no one argues with it. The fundamentals are finite and manageable in parliamentary terms within a reasonable number of hours. They do not extend the time unnecessarily. We have been extremely generous in the progress that we have already made.
It is important for those hon. and right hon. Members on both sides who are inclined to delay such events to take into account the national interests of Britain. In a letter to The Times on 2 November 1992, the president of the Confederation of British Industry and 27 top leaders of British industry asked for an early passage of the Bill. In the letter they pointed out:
Continuing uncertainty over the Maastricht treaty and our future in Europe is already having a damaging effect. Without a clear message soon from Parliament, political uncertainty will translate into more lost output and unemployment.
I beseech my hon. Friends to take account of that message. Sir Michael Angus and his friends speak from the business and commercial point of view. While I dwell on the letter, I point out that Sir Michael Angus and his friends also emphasise:
The single market is more than a free trade area: it requires regulation and enforcement to ensure that barriers to competition are removed. The ratification of Maastricht will assist the development of that regulatory framework and will help to ensure that the single market continues to move forward.
Since then we have passed the date at which the single market is, at least theoretically, in operation. Yet we have still to make significant progress in the ratification of the treaty.
That plea from the leaders of British industry about the economy and tackling unemployment should not go unheard by any of us in the House. Some of the comments that we have heard today and in earlier debates from those who are doubtful about and hostile to Maastricht betray


a lack of confidence in our country. I know that they wish to stand up for British interests, but they display a lack of faith in our ability to do so.
For example, I reject the idea that for years to come we shall never put the economy of Britain into a state in which we can look in the eye the economies of continental Europe and, therefore, in due course rejoin the ERM and adopt a single currency. But that is for the future. Certainly, today we must ensure that we do not retreat and say that we cannot compete with our partners in the European Community. We most definitely can.
It is an odd arrangement that some of my hon. Friends say, "This is going too far; all that we would like is a free trade area", when our erstwhile partners in the European Free Trade Association are passing us coming the other way. Just as we seem to want to move into the outer corridors of the European Community, we meet the Swedes and all the rest coming in. They have understood the benefits of the European Community as it now is. It would be odd if we moved in the opposite direction.
The concept that the European Community has only ever involved trade and economic affairs is false. The treaty of Rome, for accession to which virtually all my hon. Friends who now object to Maastricht voted, referred to an ever closer union. That was the original concept of the treaty of Rome in 1958.
I refer the Committee to a far-sighted statement made by a Head of Government some eight or nine years ago which said:
It must be our objective to aim beyond the Common Commercial Policy through Political Cooperation towards a common approach to external affairs … This means giving greater depth to the Community both in its internal and external activities.
The message concluded that we should
take the necessary steps to strengthen the voice of the Community and make its influence felt in the world; heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what united us".
The current word is vision. That was a statement of vision. That statement was made on 25 June 1984 by Baroness Thatcher. She was right then. Those aims should certainly remain our objective. I hope that from time to time Lady Thatcher will take down from her archives that memorandum and remind herself of the foresight and vision that she demonstrated to the other Heads of Government eight and a half years ago.
In the interests of furthering the debate, I do not wish to prolong my speech. I merely wish to say that the single market that we have put into operation has underlined even more the need to make progress on ratification of the Maastricht treaty. It underlines the dangers that unnecessary delay would cause to Britain's national interests.
Finally, we must concentrate on Britain's national interests and not on those of Denmark—they are the responsibility of the Danish legislators and their people. We have our own interests and we should have our own timetable, which should be a steady, but relatively rapid, approval of this excellent treaty.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Because of the nature of the amendments, the debate has ranged over practically all of title II. Someone like myself, who has been in the House for 20 years and has sat through many such debates, may

be surprised at the transformation in the attitude of so many hon. Members on both sides of the House to the European Economic Community, or the Common Market as it used to be called when I came to the House.
I remember 1972, when a demoralised Conservative party, frightened of the unions at Upper Clyde and having ditched Selsdon Man in the first two years of the Administration, was persuaded by the then Prime Minister and a few of the zealots around him that the treaty of Rome was only about trade and economics. They believed him for some time.
We moved on to the Single European Act—as it is rather oddly called—and again a Conservative Prime Minister was able to convince himself, perhaps, and the rest of the Conservative party that the Single European Act was only about free trade. Somewhere between that Act and the Maastricht treaty, a large section of the Conservative party has realised that it is all about union. The treaty may be about economics and about trade, but it is far more than that—it is about union.
I remember saying that the Celts recognise unions—they can sniff them out and they know them when they see them. The English do not know much about unions, but a large section of the Conservative party has now realised that the Maastricht treaty is about union, as was the Single European Act and the original treaty of Rome.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who is not in the Chamber, tried to justify—as other Conservative Members who were in the House in 1972 have—his support for the treaty of Rome and for the Single European Act and his opposition to the Maastricht treaty. I understand his attempts at justification.
The treaty is a substantial step on the road to union, but it is not basically very different from what went on before. Perhaps I shall be in the House for the single European final act—the final solution. There will be another Act—there has to be, because the structure that is being set up is neither fish nor fowl.
We have spent a long time arguing whether the treaty is federal. What is it? No one quite knows, except that we know that it will mean the transfer of a substantial amount of democracy. We do not have to use the old-fashioned word sovereignty if we do not want to. The treaty will transfer a substantial amount of democracy from the Parliaments and elected Governments of all 12 countries to non-democratic institutions. That is a fact and it may or may not be a good thing for some people. There will be a significant transfer of power to the European central bank and to the Commission to the detriment of democratic accountability.
Matters have been mapped out in a brilliant fashion. Those who are behind the policy know that pressure is bound to increase to relieve the democratic deficit, as it is called. They will attempt to do that by increasing the powers of the European Parliament and by setting up some kind of executive. All that will reduce still further the powers of national Parliaments. That will lie behind the final Act and I may still be in the House when it is introduced. If we still have a Conservative Government then, no doubt the Prime Minister will make speeches at Tory party conferences to assure people that, although our sovereignty may go, our national identity will be retained. I remember the little old lady from the Scilly Isles who asked the present Prime Minister not to lose our national identity in a federal Europe; he was happy to reassure her about that.
The Scots will still be able to wear funny skirts and Welsh ladies will still be able to wear their top hats. All the trappings of national identity will remain, but the object of the exercise will be the transfer of sovereignty.
We have seen a transformation in attitudes in the Conservative party and we have seen a similar transformation within the Labour party, as was evident from excellent speeches tonight. That transformation has come about because of the demoralisation of our party. Apparently, somehow, salvation now lies in economic and monetary union.
The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) relate to article 2, which has come as manna from heaven for some of our pro-marketeers. We have all seen the briefings—they were not very good—that have been distributed about it. Article 2 is the one on to which the pro-marketeers have decided to latch and to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made a fair fist of it, as did a number of my other hon. Friends. In fact, considering how bad the case is for that article, my hon. Friends did remarkably well.
Perhaps my hon. Friends should take a close look at the language of that article because they will discover that it does not help them very much. They may think that it does, but let us consider the three phrases that deal with economic matters. First, we are told that everyone agrees with a great degree of convergence, but convergence is defined only later in the treaty. There is no convergence on unemployment—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to recognise that the Committee has grown somewhat in size. They should have the courtesy to listen to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that protection and assistance, Mr. Morris.
The only convergence with which the treaty deals is the convergence of inflation and budget deficits. I do not believe that there can be any other "meaningful" convergence, because if the intention is to arrive, finally, at a single currency—basically that is what economic and monetary union is about—those are the only convergence indicators that we can have.
My hon. Friends who are in favour of article 2 are attempting to write another treaty. They have attempted to convince themselves that if the Labour party had negotiated this treaty, it would have included different convergence indicators. However, we would never have come to a common or single currency with any other convergence indicators, because that would have made no sense. We would never have reached the goal that some of my hon. Friends and many in the Conservative party now, apparently, wish to achieve.
Only two basic convergence indicators are relevant to a single currency—practically abolishing inflation in all member states, and locking the currencies together, thus reducing the budget deficits so that we can move towards a single currency. On the question of a high degree of convergence, we on this side of the argument are whistling in the wind. Some of my hon. Friends believe that, somehow, we can slide out of the convergence indicators.
Much has been made of the term "price stability". Indeed, one or two of my hon. Friends said, "Surely you are not in favour of price instability." Of course we are not

in favour of price instability. The whole section of this treaty dealing with economic and monetary union is lifted from the treaty of the German Bundesbank. The words are exactly the same. The term "price stability" is to be found there, and there is nothing wrong in that. Price stability is what we are going to have here. But it will take effort and pain to achieve the goal of economic and monetary union. Price stability is essential and it means no inflation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee has been a distinguished Labour party spokesman on Treasury matters and hon. Members are entitled to hear him. He is making a very valuable contribution to the debate and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will behave in a more seemly manner.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. Davies: Price stability is obviously essential to the treaty. I submit that the words "high degree of convergence" do not assist my hon. Friends who have mounted this exercise of pretending that, somehow, the Maastricht treaty is something that the Labour party can support.
The next part of article 2 refers to "non-inflationary growth". We are all in favour of non-inflationary growth. It is marvellous. I am sure that this is not the right time for a philosophical discussion of inflation and growth, but I see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present. People in the Treasury read and talk about these things all the time. It is very doubtful whether Essex man or woman or western society is really prepared to accept non-inflationary growth. Indeed, is it possible to have non-inflationary growth in consumer-based, service-based economies such as we have today?
I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has arrived. He does not believe in non-inflationary growth. He did at one time, but he became frightened. He realised that, as inflation came down, growth stopped and unemployment increased. The southern England constituency—not northern England or middle England or south Wales or Scotland, but the whole great service industry, consumer constituency of the south of England—suddenly realised that it wanted inflation. Essex man and Essex woman cannot live without inflation. They need to see house prices going up. The service industries for which they work cannot increase productivity, so if is they are to have more money they must have inflation. So the Prime Minister does not believe in non-inflationary growth. But apparently the Labour party does. Apparently, many of my hon. Friends now believe in non-inflationary growth. The choice in the treaty is not between inflationary and non-inflationary growth but between low inflation and no growth. That is what is really behind the words of the treaty. If we cannot have growth without inflation, we shall have no growth. Some people believe that, provided that inflation can be reduced to zero, jobs will magically be created.

Mr. Dorrell: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: The Financial Secretary nods again. The Treasury has obviously been holding seminars and has been converted. The Prime Minister does not agree with


any of it, but the present Financial Secretary apparently does. We cannot have non-inflationary growth in today's western capitalist economies. In the 1930s, it was possible to have some growth and deflation.

Mr. Derrell: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: The Financial Secretary nods again. The lessons have been going well. Perhaps the same people have been briefing us.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Iraq (Military Action)

10 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, I should like to make a statement on allied military action against Iraq.
At 18.15 hours GMT tonight, four RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft and two Victor tankers took part in a coalition operation, involving some 114 United States, British and French aircraft, against Iraqi military targets in southern Iraq. The action was taken to ensure the safety of coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone below the 32nd parallel in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688. Early indications are that serious damage was inflicted and assessment of the results is continuing. No losses were sustained by coalition forces.
This coalition action was taken in self defence under international law and is both a necessary and proportionate response to the serious threat posed to the safety of coalition aircraft. The coalition action took the form of air strikes against air defence facilities and command and control facilities. Attacks were also carried out to suppress air defence installations which threatened the security of coalition aircraft participating in the operation. United Kingdom forces participated in attacks against command and control facilities at Al Amarah, with RAF Tornado GR1 aircraft, using 1,000 lb laser-guided bombs against targets designated by the thermal imaging airborne laser designator, known as TIALD, carried by two of the four aircraft.
The action is to be seen against the background of recent Iraqi violations of the no-fly zone and their deployment of SAM 2 and SAM 3 missiles in a threatening posture below the 32nd parallel, south of the airfield used by Iraqi aircraft which were violating the no-fly zone. These posed a new and unacceptable threat to the security of coalition aircraft. A strongly worded demarche was issued to Iraq in New York on 6 January by the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia, which demanded that the SAM systems recently established south of the 32nd parallel be returned to their previous locations and configurations and that violations of the no-fly zone should cease. The demarche went on to say that, should Iraq fail to comply, the coalition would respond appropriately and decisively, without further warning.
The demarche elaborated on an earlier one on 26 August 1992 which announced the creation of the no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel. The no-fly zone was necessitated by a situation of severe humanitarian need in southern Iraq arising from Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which calls on Iraq to refrain from further repressing its civilian population. Iraq largely respected the no-fly zone until late December 1992, when Iraqi military aircraft began deliberate and systematic violations. This resulted in an Iraqi fighter aircraft being shot down on 27 December by coalition aircraft.
Following the demarche there were no indications that Saddam Hussein was backing down. There were no fresh violations of the no-fly zone and the missiles were dispersing. However, despite the clear warning issued on 6 January, Iraq moved SAM 3 missiles, which were the subject of the demarche, to new locations south of the 32nd parallel where they posed a significant threat to


coalition aircraft. Other missile systems in the south were placed on an operational footing, also threatening the safety of coalition aircraft. The coalition action was in direct response to this threat.
The Baghdad regime can now be in no doubt about our determination to maintain the no-fly zone south of the 32nd parallel, in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688. Should the need arise, the Government will consider the need for further action in consultation with coalition partners.
The House will also be aware of the deep concern expressed by the United Nations Security Council, following Iraqi incursions into the demilitarised zone on the border with Kuwait and Iraq's violation of land and premises operated and occupied by the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait Observer Mission. The Security Council has also expressed alarm at Iraq's refusal to allow UNIKOM and United Nations special commission flights into Iraq using UN aircraft. The Government will continue to participate fully in consideration of these matters within the Security Council and report developments to the House.
I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing admiration for the bravery and professionalism of the personnel of all the coalition forces who participated in this operation and in particular to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces serving in the Gulf. They have once again demonstrated the high degree of dedication and the ability that we have learned to expect from them and have contributed immeasurably to the success of this operation.

Dr. David Clark: May I say how relieved Opposition Members are that all the allied personnel have returned safely. We salute their skill and their bravery. It is worth reminding ourselves in the comfort of the House tonight that the mission was not without danger, as we know from other theatres of operation in the world only this afternoon.
The Opposition have supported the objective of this operation which was to ensure that allied aircraft could patrol the no-fly zone in Iraq, thereby ensuring that the Kurds and, in the south, the Shi'ite Muslims were not subjected to the genocide that they might otherwise have been. That is why the no-fly zones were established, and that is why they had to be enforced.
As allied aircraft could not fly in those zones without threat because of the missiles, it was clearly correct that the missiles should be removed. Saddam Hussein was warned, he was requested, and he refused to move them. The only course of action was to take out the missiles.
We are all aware that increasingly in the past few weeks Saddam Hussein has tried to challenge the resolutions of the United Nations. That cannot be tolerated. We cannot have the will of the United Nations challenged 'with impunity. Let us just hope now that Saddam Hussein fully understands the resolve of the world to ensure that the resolutions of the United Nations to protect the minorities in the world are upheld. I hope that he has heard what the rest of the world has said.
We are also reassured that the action in the operation was against military targets in the no-fly zone. We are relieved that there have been no civilian targets and, we hope, no civilian casualties. I think that I speak for the House when I express the hope that the casualties on the Iraqi side are absolutely minimal, whether civilian or not.
May I just ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that there will be intense diplomatic efforts to explain, with the coalition Gulf allies, the reason for this mission, because it is imperative, if we are to make progress—and we must make peaceful progress—that we have as broad a consensus as possible. That is vital if this operation is not to be wasted.
We fully appreciate that the Secretary of State is not in a position now to tell us how effective the operation has been. We hope that he will be able to do so tomorrow, and will then give the assurance that the House will be kept fully informed and he will come to the House if he has further information.
I shall end where I began and say that if we are to have a secure world order it must be based on the United Nations. If United Nations resolutions are passed, they must be adhered to and accepted by all sides. That was the reason for today's operation and why we are so pleased that it was so successful.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It will make a powerful impact if the House speaks with a single voice on the matter.
It was right for the hon. Gentleman to remind the House that the personnel of the RAF who participated in the operation did so at significant personal risk and it is a matter of considerable relief that they all returned safely. It was also right for the hon. Gentleman to emphasise the importance of maintaining the closest contact, cooperation and dialogue with our allies in the Gulf. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the great importance of ensuring that not only those who participated in the operation, but all who have an interest in peace and stability in the Gulf are able to speak in a single and united manner.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the likely effects of the operation. The early signs are encouraging, but it will be some time before we can describe with certainty the detailed consequences. Of course, we shall keep the House informed when we receive such information.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for coming to the House so speedily to give us the reassurances that we have heard. We warmly support his praise for the coalition forces, especially those that formed part of the Royal Air Force. Many of us felt that more than a diplomatic slap on the wrist of Saddam Hussein was much needed. We warmly support our Government in their resolution to support what we believe to be the will of the United Nations and the coalition alliance that successfully won the war. If we are to secure peace, it is vital that we make it clear to Saddam Hussein that there can be no more such incursions.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. It is becoming increasingly clear that Saddam Hussein does not respond simply to diplomatic representations and it is, regrettably, often necessary for the international community to back up its representations with the use of force in appropriate circumstances. We now face such circumstances, which was why the present action was necessary.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the success of the action will be determined not only by the effectiveness of the weapons used, and the professionalism and bravery of our forces,


but by the extent to which it dissuades Saddam Hussein from further acts of provocation in breach of the United Nations resolutions? If further military action is required—it cannot be ruled out—the Government will continue to enjoy our support and, I believe, that of the British public as long as such action is in accordance with international law, taken in consultation with our coalition partners and uses no more force than necessary.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I can assure him that the criteria against which we judge possible action are those to which he referred.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Having heard the comments from the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence feel fortified by the knowledge that the actions taken have the overwhelming support of the House and the country, both of which would wish to join him in paying tribute to the service personnel involved?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the effectiveness of the cruise missiles during the previous Gulf conflict? Were cruise missiles used today? If it should, unfortunately, be necessary to take further action, will cruise missiles, which can be used with relative lack of danger to service personnel, be available in the area?

Mr. Rifkind: I should like to confine myself to speaking about the contribution of the Royal Air Force. Obviously it is for the United States Government to give details of the operations for which they were responsible. I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and assure him that the weapons that may be used in any operation will be those that are thought most suitable to achieve the desired result.

Mr. Bruce George: Most hon. Members believe that Saddam had it coming. In the words of an anonymous Pentagon official, it was a spanking rather than a beating. What part did we play in determining that it was a spanking rather than a beating? Is it right that the overwhelming force was supplied by the United States? Is it not politically important for the balance of numbers to be different from what it was? We provided six aircraft out of more than 100 and the French probably supplied a similar number. Would it not be more correct to have a better balance in any future world order?

Mr. Rifkind: In the action we attached great importance to the fact that the choice of targets and the severity of our response should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence by the Iraqi Government. As I said earlier, the targets for which the Royal Air Force was responsible were the Al Amarah base and the command and control functions there.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the integrity of Kuwait is just as valid a reason for international intervention now as it was two years ago? In the meantime, of course, Saddam Hussein has continued to commit atrocities against his own people. Will my right hon. And

learned Friend affirm the Government's commitment in conjunction with all right-minded nations to work to bring peace to that unfortunate region?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of great concern that only today Iraqi spokesmen continued to claim that Kuwait was part of Iraq and, clearly, continued to refuse to recognise Kuwait's sovereignty and independence. It is crucial for the international community to speak with a single voice and to ensure that Saddam Hussein's regime is completely isolated in its continuing aggression and provocation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: From this Bench on a day when we have mourned the killing of a British service man in Bosnia, may I say that we are delighted at the news that there have been no fatalities among the allied Gulf forces. However, there is some concern that the statement referred to the protection of our aircraft. Resolution 688 was clearly designed by the United Nations Security Council to protect the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Has any thought been given to how we can give them better protection? They are suffering, and to some of us it seems that minds are conditioned to reaction rather than proaction in dealing with these issues.

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the original reason for the no-fly zone was to reduce and, we hoped, to eliminate the use of aircraft as a means of oppressing the Shia population in southern Iraq, and there is significant evidence that it has had a positive and beneficial effect. Of course, we continue to look to further ways of ensuring that all oppression of the population in southern Iraq can be totally ended.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said, should not the Minister be emphasising that this strike was to defend defenceless people whom Saddam Hussein has marked down for genocide? Does he not think that we now need to concentrate on the battle for the minds of the people of Iraq and that they need to get the truth about what this matter is really about?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. We are aware that, because of the Iraqi regime's oppression of its own people, there are limited opportunities for those people to express their true feelings. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that their views are as important as the views of other countries in the region in emphasising the hostility and repugnance that we all feel about the behaviour of the Iraqi Government.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement describing this action as a coalition response confirms that it had no authority whatever from the United Nations Security Council, and nor has the Secretary-General endorsed it? Given the Palestinians who were thrown into the desert and Matrix Churchill, it underlines the double standards that have been followed by the Government.
Is the Secretary of State aware also that this will be seen worldwide as the last example of gunboat diplomacy by a lame duck President, and that it will almost certainly strengthen Saddam Hussein? Is he further aware that it is bound to stimulate Arab hostility to the west, with the growth of fundamentalism? Two years ago we probably killed 300,000 Iraqis. The right hon. and learned


Gentleman may have noticed on the news tonight that a UNICEF spokesman said that typhoid and cholera were still rampant in Iraq because of the bombing of the water supply. In those circumstances, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, whatever may be said in the House, world opinion will not take the view that he asks us to accept?

Mr. Rifkind: It is more likely that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks will be seen as those of a lame duck Member of Parliament who does not speak for anyone in the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred the Iraqi regime to be able to use its aircraft and its missile installations to shoot down coalition aircraft and to make the no-fly zone inoperative, and thereby to ensure that the Iraqi regime continued its oppression against the people of southern Iraq. Is that the objective that he would have liked to seek? If so, he speaks for no one but himself.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, without the slightest shadow of doubt, the first item of news on the Iraqi broadcast tomorrow will be the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? The Iraqis will take comfort from them.
I return briefly to the point about acting against acts of provocation by the Saddam Hussein regime. We all know in the House that he will come again looking for more repression of the Kurds and the Shi'ites. Perhaps this is not the occasion, but will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if that repression comes in greater strength against the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south, more—and more positive—action will be taken?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it is clear that Saddam Hussein will use any opportunity to probe for a lack of will among the international community. I believe that today's action will have demonstrated to him that, far from lack of resolve, the international community is determined to ensure that the no-fly zone will continue to operate and that the people of southern Iraq will be protected as a consequence.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State and, I think, most of the House would agree that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly and deliberately flouted the authority of the United Nations and the purposes of the various United Nations resolutions that were passed to protect the important minorities in the north and the south of Iraq. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that by confining action to the no-fly zones he is able significantly to lift the threat from the peoples oppressed in southern and northern Iraq?

Mr. Rifkind: It is important that we comply with international law and that any action that we take is proportionate to the nature of the offence that has been committed. We made a demarche to the Iraqis, which referred specifically to their introduction of missile installations in the no-fly zone and the use of combat aircraft in that zone. It was therefore entirely correct and appropriate in our judgment that the response that was taken today should be limited to those particular matters.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that an earlier United Kingdom Government, in 1948, committed unarmed

Royal Air Force aircraft, at great cost to the aircrews involved. I am pleased to say that that is not the policy of this Government. Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure me that in future operations, as tonight, the concern will be to ensure that professional and brave crews are capable of returning home after the operations? That surely is the essence of it—to make sure that our people return having completed the exercise properly.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to those matters. I mentioned in my original statement that some 114 aircraft took part in the operation. There was such a large number because many aircraft were involved in ensuring proper protection for the aircraft that were involved in the actual attack on the ground installations. It was by such preparation and presentation that we were able to ensure the safe return of all the crews of all the countries concerned.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does not the immediate support for this action by the President of Egypt and other Arab leaders demonstrate that there is a wide range of support in the world for the determination that United Nations Security Council resolutions should be upheld? Is it not a fact that that action has been brought upon Iraq by Saddam Hussein's recklessness two years after the end of the war in continuing to defy United Nations resolutions?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that not only will sanctions be maintained in all their severity until Saddam Hussein demonstrates that he is ready to obey international law and the United Nations Security Council resolutions, but that the coalition will not hesitate to take further military action to demonstrate that, and that until Saddam Hussein conforms to international law he will be treated as the outlaw that he is?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, it is important that Arab Governments as well as western Governments are expressing their support for the action that has been taken. The action taken by the coalition today was not simply taken on behalf of the countries which directly participated, but on behalf of the international community. That is why there has been the warm response to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I also endorse the right hon. Gentleman's later comments.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not a cause for deep gratitude that, in the Royal Air Force, Britain has a reliable, courageous and efficient instrument for the imposition of international justice and order? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if Saddam Hussein is foolish enough again to permit incursions by his personnel into the demilitarised zone in Kuwait or to inhibit the flight of United Nations inspectors into his territories, Her Majesty's Government and coalition partners will, without any shadow of doubt, impose punitive action?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, what my hon. Friend says is correct. It is worth remembering that not only have RAF crews shown bravery and courage today, but they have been applying the no-fly zone for some months in circumstances when, on any day during that period, they could have been subject to attack by Iraqi missiles or aircraft. Therefore, the RAF's professionalism and dedication have been


demonstrated during the last few months in the application of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq and in the parallel zone in the north of the country as well.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the Government are highly selective in their support for the United Nations? They continue to ignore breaches by Israel and are themselves continuously in breach of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Does he accept that in all probability this action will strengthen, not weaken, Saddam Hussein's position, and that it will solve nothing? The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot claim that all hon. Members support the action which in my view is entirely misguided and will do nothing to solve the problems of the middle east.

Mr. Rifkind: I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Britain does not observe United Nations non-proliferation requirements. The hon. Gentleman might see himself as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein, but—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Rifkind: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Rifkind: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard—as, doubtless, did many other hon. Members—the Secretary of State for Defence describe my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. You, and many other hon. Members, will know that that allegation is entirely untrue. That being the case, I respectfully ask you to ask the Defence Secretary to withdraw his unfounded and disgraceful allegation.

Madam Speaker: What the Secretary of State said was not unparliamentary. Ministers and other right hon. and hon. Members are responsible for their own comments in the House.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The remark was entirely wrong and inaccurate. The Secretary of State was being economical with the truth if he was suggesting that I am a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. It is quite wrong for any Minister to try to make such a smear, given that hon. Members are entitled to make legitimate criticisms of what appears to be a consensus position. It is utterly outrageous. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The point has been made.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There are no further points of order. I have had enough. Has the Secretary of State finished?

Mr. Rifkind: indicated assent.

Mr. John Marshall: The action taken by Britain and other countries will be warmly welcomed by all who believe that the Baghdad bully is the greatest threat to peace in the middle east. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a scandal that right hon. and hon. Members should give succour to Saddam Hussein tonight?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. If we are to have the maximum impact on the behaviour of the Iraqi Government, it is important for the views of the House to be presented with great strength and unanimity.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I despair of this Government, with their obvious limitations, ever comprehending that this sort of action simply ensures the survival of Saddam and that, much more dangerous, every such action makes millions of converts to Islamic fundamentalism across the globe.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must reflect on the consequences of the coalition's not having taken action. He appears to be willing to acquiesce in a situation in which the effectiveness of the no-fly zone would have been destroyed and oppression of the Shia by the Iraqi air force would have been reintroduced. That would have fundamentally damaged the interests that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to represent.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Given that Saddam Hussein has also been violating the land border of Kuwait, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what action, if any, is being taken to improve the defences of that border?

Mr. Rifkind: The Security Council has told the Iraqi Government that that behaviour is unacceptable. I understand that the United States Government have said today that they are deploying a battalion group to Kuwait, to emphasise the importance attached to the security of that country.

Mr. Harry Cohen: How many wars and military strikes are the Government prepared to allow that punish Iraqi people but do not resolve anything? How many deaths are to be added to the 100,000 that resulted from the Gulf war? When will the Government show a readiness to save the lives of Iraqi children, whose death rate has tripled since the Gulf war, instead of engaging in this sort of jingoism?

Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the targets against which action was taken today were exclusively military. He should be the first to appreciate that the best contribution that could be made to the welfare of the Iraqi people would be Saddam Hussein's giving up power in that country, and allowing his own people to be represented in a more acceptable way.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the Government be pursuing United Nations resolution 799 with equal vigour?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government give their support to all United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the statement made earlier tonight by Sir David Hannay, our ambassador to the United Nations, that the British Government believe in the enforcement of all United


Nations resolutions without priority and differentation, will the Secretary of State explain to the House and to the international community—particularly the international Islamic community—why such swift, heavy military action was taken in this case, whereas western powers seem to stand by and turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and to the transportation of more than 400 Palestinians to a freezing desert in no man's land? Is that not an example of pathetic double standards? Are not the real friends and allies of Saddam Hussein people such as the Secretary of State, who is a member of a Government who supplied arms to Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman talks typical nonsense. He should be aware, in making comparisons with the situation in Bosnia, that not only has the United Nations introduced a no-fly zone resolution for Bosnia but that since its inception no combat aircraft have flown. It is precisely because of the use of combat aircraft by the Iraqi Government that today's action was necessary.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and to those brave men and women in the Royal Air Force, the fervent thanks of those people on the ground in the marshes in southern Iraq—from whom I have received this evening messages of gratitude?

Mr. Jimmy Wray: I do not believe it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must hear the hon. Lady.

Miss Nicholson: My right hon. and learned Friend may like to remind the House that the BBC World Service is heard in the marshes of Iraq and that the telephone service is usable. Some of us have regular contacts there, and it is derisory of the hon. Gentleman to question that particular point.
I remind my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues of the grave difficulties under which the people of southern Iraq are suffering. For example, the sewage disposal in Basra is 80 per cent. raw ditch disposal—and has been for many years, because of Saddam Hussein. There is no education in the south and no medicine in the marshes, and the people are deprived of all the usual human facilities and all possibility of leading any kind of a normal life. That is due to Saddam Hussein, and has nothing to do with the actions of the allies in the Gulf war. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make absolutely certain that we do everything possible on the ground to relieve those poor people from the devilry that Saddam Hussein constantly inflicts on them, out of sight of western cameras.

Mr. Rifkind: I listened with great care to my hon. Friend's remarks, because I know that she has made a number of courageous visits to the marshlands of southern Iraq, to make her own outstanding contribution to the welfare of the oppressed people in that area. We are not only pleased that the no-fly zone has helped to reduce that oppression but are always anxious to explore other ways of assisting the people to whom she has given such a high degree of personal commitment.

Mr. John Hutton: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the

Government will seek ways to strengthen the United Nations forces currently patrolling the demilitarised zone around Kuwait? Can he confirm that large amounts of weaponry have already been retrieved by the Iraqis, including four Silkworm missiles that could be used against coalition forces? Can he assure the House that any remaining weaponry in former Iraqi territory that is now part of the demilitarised zone will be moved out of the reach of the invading Iraqis?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to that particular problem. There is considerable difficulty in that United Nations personnel are not normally armed and therefore have been unable to resist incursions by armed Iraqis who removed assets, including Silkworm missiles. It is clearly important to draw the appropriate conclusions from those incidents, to ensure that they do not recur.

Mr. Quentin Davies: It is clear that the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members are entirely convinced that it was vital, in the interests of world peace, to prevent the United Nations from being made a fool of by Saddam Hussein. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is no less vital that the United Nations should not be made a fool of in Bosnia and Serbia?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course. That is, indeed, a very important objective. The way in which we try to prosecute the interests of the United Nations has to take account of the particular circumstances of each country. We try to use the most effective means available to us to achieve those objectives.

Mr. George Galloway: The Secretary of State should be aware that the action taken tonight is worse than a crime—it is a blunder. It is a blunder because, when the fog of war clears tomorrow, we shall find that the people who have been not "spanked", as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) had it, but torn limb from limb and incinerated under the bombs—smart or otherwise—will be people who never voted for Saddam Hussein and who are not responsible for the crimes that he has committed down the years, including all the years during which the British Government were selling him arms.
The radicalisation and Islamicisation that is occurring across the Arab area and the broader Muslim world will be greatly intensified by what will be regarded as western double standards, whereby the west is ready, at a moment's notice, to pulverise Iraq, but unable, over decades, to do anything about Israel's rejecting and ignoring international law and international standards, or to do anything to save the lives of the tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims who have died in the current campaign in former Yugoslavia.
Is not the Secretary of State aware that, across the Arab world, Saddam Hussein has been made into a hero by those double standards, and that the blunder and crime that was committed this evening will come back to haunt us in years to come?

Mr. Rifkind: I must first tell the hon. Gentleman that his views are not the views of Arab Governments in the region, who are already welcoming the action that has been taken today. I must also remind the hon. Gentleman that, whereas the coalition today restricted itself


deliberately to military targets, the no-fly zone was introduced to prevent Iraqi aircraft, ultimately commanded by Saddam Hussein, from bombing innocent civilians —innocent men, women and children—in southern Iraq. If the hon. Gentleman's advice were accepted, it would lead directly to the non-continuation of the no-fly zone restrictions and to the resumption of the bombing of innocent people. That is where the hon. Gentleman's policy would appear to lead.

Sir George Gardiner: My right hon. and learned Friend will already know that the bulk of the British population will support the rather limited counter action that has been taken against Saddam Hussein. Will he acknowledge that, in the perception of the bulk of our citizens, the time will come when we will need not only to give Saddam Hussein a bloody nose but to go for his throat?

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, if the Iraqi regime continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and to take aggressive action, it will invite further action by the international community. That would be not only proportionate but necessary if such circumstances arose.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept that he will have my party's support for action undertaken to uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions because we believe that to do other than enforce those resolutions would be to be ineffective and to follow the rather sad example of the League of Nations which was the precursor of the United Nations? However, we believe that all Security Council resolutions should be pursued with equal vigour and not on a selective basis.
As an hon. Member who represents a constituency with a substantial number of armed forces personnel, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what mechanisms are being established to ensure that, should further action be undertaken, the families are aware of the circumstances? He will be well aware of the problems that families face in such circumstances. I remind him, too, that I speak as an hon. Member who lost a constituent in the previous Gulf conflict.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their support for today's action. We are always anxious to give maximum information to families. It is in the nature of such operations that they have to be kept entirely confidential and secret until they have taken place. Thereafter, however, we try to provide as much information as is consistent with normal security considerations.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has quite properly reassured the House that our Arab friends have welcomed the action today. But our Arab friends would be further reassured if we were to take proportionate action to make sure that Israel also abided by international resolutions. What action do the Government intend to take to provide that reassurance?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend must put specific questions of that sort to my right hon. Friend the Foreign

Secretary. I know that my hon. Friend has done so in the past, and that he has been impressed by the answers which he has received.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the action taken today has more to do with the vanity of the lame duck President Bush than anything else, and that the British Government tagged along like lap dogs, as they did in the Gulf war? How many of the installations which were knocked out were provided with British technology?
The Secretary of State has some cheek to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) or anyone else about being an ally of Saddam Hussein when he is a member of a Government who could not tell the difference between an Iraqi gun and an oil pipeline until the truth emerged and we found that the Government were involved in squalid deals to enable Saddam Hussein to carry out genocide against his people.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically robust intervention in these matters. His views are not unexpected, although they are based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts. However, a complete misunderstanding of the facts has never deterred the hon. Gentleman in the past, and there is no reason to suspect that it would have a different effect today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why is it that the Government of Turkey have denied the use of bases? Is it not a fact that the Government of Jordan have deplored the action and asked for a negotiated settlement?
On a question of fact, do the British have any control whatever over a decision of the United States to use some of the 400 Patriot missiles that have been installed? What is the position on the increased number of American troops in Kuwait? Can the British Government give an assurance that the American troops will be consulted if there is to be any land action?
Do the Government know that there are more Shia Muslims than Sunni Muslims in Baghdad and that this is far from a cut-and-dried situation?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Turkey is giving its full co-operation to the imposition of the no-fly zone in the north of Iraq. Indeed, British Royal Air Force planes and United States aircraft are based in Turkey with the full support of the Turkish Government.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter comments, we had the closest consultation with the United States and with France on the particular operation that I have described today. Such consultation will also apply to any other possible action that might be taken in support of the United Nations or the international community.

Mr. Dalyell: And Jordan?

Mr. Rifkind: We shall have to examine exactly what the Jordanian Government said. We all hope that there are prospects for negotiated agreements. Regrettably, force is sometimes required precisely because Saddam Hussein has shown scant respect for diplomacy and because he only appears willing to acknowledge the use of force.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to what various Opposition Members have said, this is an attack on not the people of Iraq but the regime of Saddam Hussein? Does he


also agree that the vast majority of the people of Iraq, be they Sunnis from Baghdad, Shi'ites from the south or Kurds from the north, will warmly applaud this action and hope that it will hasten the downfall of the evil regime of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of those who have been oppressed by the Iraqi regime. None have been more oppressed than the Iraqi people themselves.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, as I did two years ago, welcome military action against this dictator in the middle east? Although a majority of hon. Members are required, and are willing, to support military action, is it not strangely ironic that only two weeks ago officials of the Baghdad regime were in the United Kingdom negotiating with a major British defence contractor for the supply of telecommunications equipment to Baghdad? Surely Ministers should give honest and open answers to Parliament on that matter.

Mr. Rifkind: While I note what the hon. Gentleman says, I would wish to examine the basis of the comments that he has made before making any further comment on them. They are serious matters. I would wish to see the evidence that he has for that allegation.

Mr. Bernie Grant: May I ask the Minister to be factual in his answer to my questions? First, did the strikes against the Iraqi forces take place inside or outside the no-fly zone? I understood that the United Nations resolution was about a no-fly zone, not a no-walk zone, no-run zone or no-missiles zone. Did the United Nations resolution specifically authorise the coalition forces to bomb missiles which might be inside the no-fly zone?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I can confirm that all the targets that were the subject of attack by coalition forces were in the no-fly zone. On the hon. Gentleman's second question, once a no-fly zone has been authorised in accordance with international law, it is entirely appropriate to act in self-defence to ensure the safety of those who are imposing the no-fly zone. It is because the Iraqi Government introduced SAM missiles in the no-fly zone which represented a very serious threat indeed to the safety of those air force crews from the various countries concerned that it is entirely justifiable and in accordance with international law to take the action that was taken today.

Mr. Robert Banks: Is it not a matter of great satisfaction that the allies have shown such resolve in this matter? May we congratulate President Bush in the last few days of his presidency on the actions that he has taken, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of France? Is the action not something for which Saddam Hussein bears full responsibility for bringing against his own people and for which he should pay the price?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I would add that President Bush can be congratulated on the resolute way in which he has acted throughout his presidency. He has been a superb President in the contribution that he has made to dealing with the aggression represented by the Iraqi regime. That has been to the benefit of the international community as a whole.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Can the Secretary of State give the House estimated Iraqi casualties in the strike tonight? Did the Iraqis return fire?

Mr. Rifkind: At this stage we cannot estimate casualties. But I emphasise that all the targets were military. The operation took place at night. Therefore, it is unlikely that the casualties were substantial in number. On the question about any resistance to the allied effort, I can inform the House that some radar activity was noted during the operation. There was also some anti-aircraft activity in the area of the target and it is possible that some surface-to-air missiles were fired. But it is difficult to be certain at this stage. I can assure the House that there were no casualties and none of the coalition aircraft was hit or damaged in any way.

Dr. Norman A Godman: It is surely the case that throughout the United Kingdom people of all political persuasions share a deep detestation of Saddam Hussein and his evil regime. However, the dramatic decisiveness shown by the coalition nations in this action stands in stark contrast to the craven reluctance of the United Nations and so-called coalition nations to take such decisive action on behalf of the people of Tibet, who have suffered something close to genocide at the hands of those ancient men in Peking. They have also shown craven reluctance to help the people of Serbia. Surely what is needed in the United Nations is a unified military command structure and an honourable consistency in the organisation's peacekeeping and peace making activities.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the United Nations has dramatically extended its peacekeeping activities during the past three or four years. In the first 40 years of its existence, it was able to initiate only about 13 peacekeeping operations; a further 13 have been authorised in the past three or four years, which shows that the objectives to which the hon. Gentleman aspires are clearly resulting in some significant enhancement of the UN's ability to influence events and to try to reduce oppression.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State for Defence admit that for many years Her Majesty's Government have been the greatest friend and ally of Saddam Hussein, as they have succeeded in arming him to the teeth? Will he also admit that the likely consequences of his statement are that Saddam Hussein will renew his persecution of Kurds and Shias, that the people of Iraq will unify behind him and that the alienation of the Arab and Islamic countries against the west is likely to intensify further, and accusations of double standards against the west, because of its eagerness to bomb Iraq but to appease Serbia, will be made time and again? I therefore ask the Secretary of State to apologise and to withdraw his earlier remark against an Opposition Member who—like many other Opposition Members—is merely guilty of opposing the Government's dreadful record on oppression, Saddam Hussein and double standards.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Saddam Hussein oppresses the Kurds and the Shias only in response to actions by the international community is a most extraordinary proposition. The reality is that nothing would be more likely to lead to a resumption of oppression


against the Shias and the Kurds than if the no-fly zone imposed by the international community had to cease because of our unwillingness to take effective action when there have been transgressions against it by the Iraqi Government.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Could the Secretary of State bear to admit that many Opposition Members have never supported Saddam Hussein and have consistently stood up for human rights in Iraq, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden)? What appalls us is that the British and American strategy has resulted in 300,000 deaths, poverty throughout Iraq and cholera in the streets. What is the objective—is it further bombardment, or is there a serious political objective of bringing peace to that region?

Mr. Rifkind: The international action has led to the liberation of Kuwait and the protection of the Kurds in northern Iraq and of the Shias in southern Iraq, and the hon. Gentleman should be doing all in his power to help to lead that international action towards the eventual disappearance of Saddam Hussein as ruler of Baghdad.

Mr. Peter Hain: May I join the Secretary of State in congratulating our personnel on their courage and proficiency in an operation which was successful and probably inevitable? May I also invite him to admit that they are the fall guys for the failure and bankruptcy of the policies of the Government and their allies in the Gulf? First, the Government armed Saddam Hussein and then they prosecuted a war that caused devastation to the infrastructure, the people and the environment of the region, but Saddam Hussein and his odious tyranny is still there, killing the Kurds and Shi'ites and committing acts of aggression against the Kuwaitis and others in the region. The fact is that the allies' policy has failed abysmally and the Secretary of State should have the honesty to admit it.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The allied policy has led to the renewed independence of Kuwait and the protection that is being given to the Shias and the Kurds. I waited with interest, but without success, to hear the hon. Gentleman's scenario as to what would have been more likely to achieve those results.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Security Council resolutions are quite wordy and in some ways rather precise, such as resolution 688. Which detail of the resolution justifies the action that the Americans and the Government have been involved in in Iraq? Can the Secretary of State quote the detail that allows that to have taken place and justifies it?

Mr. Rifkind: Security Council resolution 688 calls on Iraq to refrain from further repression of its civilian population. It was in pursuance of that resolution that the no-fly zone was introduced in accordance with international law. In accordance with international law, it is appropriate to take action to defend those who have the responsibility of applying that policy.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Secretary of State tell us what action is now planned to protect the Kurds should there be further attempts by Saddam to strangle and harass the Kurdish people? Can he assure us that, as well as thinking about military action, the

Government are serious about trying to bring about democratic change in Iraq? The Iraqi opposition wants that rather than a stand-off that keeps Saddam in power.

Mr. Rifkind: We attach importance to the rights of the Kurdish population in northern Iraq and that is why we have a no-fly zone in that part of the country as well. It has been successfully applied and any transgressions against it by the Iraqi regime would be treated with great seriousness.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: The Secretary of State's robust defence of the United Nations resolution would ring a lot more true if we pursued others as vigorously as we have done this one. No doubt he will be aware of the violations of human rights that are everyday occurrences in Kashmir, yet United Nations resolutions, outstanding from 1947 and 1948, have never been acted upon. We have not had any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman of who authorised today's action. Who authorised it?

Mr. Rifkind: The action was obviously the responsibility of the countries that participated in the operation. They are the countries which have applied the no-fly zone and, in accordance with international law, they are entitled to take action in defence of their own aircrews. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would have preferred a situation where the RAF would have been exposed to attack by the Iraqi air force without the right to defend itself. If that is the action which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, it would have been consistent with discontinuing the no-fly zone, with all the consequences that that would have meant for the Shia population.

Mr. Boyce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no point of order at this stage; we are in the middle of questions on the statement.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In the interests of maintaining international authority, will the Secretary of State assure the House that attention will not be restricted purely to the no-fly zones, at least until the United Nations aircraft are able to fly into Baghdad and United Nations inspection teams can complete their work there?

Mr. Rifkind: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Security Council also attaches the gravest importance to the refusal of the Iraqi Government to allow those missions to proceed to Baghdad in United Nations aircraft. Earlier today, there was a report that the Iraqi deputy Prime Minister had said that United Nations planes might be permitted. We hope that that is to be the Iraqi policy, which would be a welcome reversal of the stance that it has taken recently.

Dr. David Clark: In view of what I said previously, I do not think that the House or the Secretary of State can be in any doubt of my support for the operation or, indeed, can be in any doubt that my judgment is at variance with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). However, on reflection, the Secretary of State may have slightly misjudged the issue by saying that my hon. Friend was an ally and friend of Saddam Hussein. I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not think that it helps the House for the message to go out


that Saddam Hussein has any friends at all in the House. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would consider reflecting upon his earlier comment and withdrawing it?

Mr. Rifkind: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the remark that I made was that the hon. Member for Bradford, South might think of himself as an ally and friend of Saddam Hussein. If the hon. Gentleman does not think of himself in those terms, I and the House would be delighted to hear that. I must repeat the fact that I believe that the policies that he espouses work to the advantage of Saddam Hussein and will be well received in Baghdad tonight.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Let me make absolutely plain my position on this matter, which the Secretary of State raised directly. I do not regard, and have never regarded, myself as a friend and ally of Saddam Hussein. Now that I have said so, will the Secretary of State completely withdraw his slur against me? I have never sold guns to Saddam Hussein or anybody else.

Mr. Boyce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What redress is available to an ordinary Back Bencher who puts a legitimate question to the Secretary of State and is replied to with a question containing serious allegations about that Member's personal stand on the action taken today? Are we to understand that the Secretary of State may answer questions with questions and that Back Benchers have no redress?

Madam Speaker: Back Benchers learn very quickly to pursue matters by various methods. I have been a Member of this House for 20 years. When the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, he will find ways and means of doing this.

PETITION

Disabled People

Mr. Richard Burden: I should like to present a petition from a large number of members of Mencap in Birmingham. It reads as follows:
SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION FOR DISABLED PEOPLE
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of supporters of Birmingham Mencap shows.
That people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled (for whatever reason) are continually having to face widespread, unjustifiable discrimination.
That legislation is necessary to outlaw this discrimination.
Therefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw unjustifiable discrimination against people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled as soon as possible.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Aujeszky's Disease

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Michael Lord: I am extremely grateful to have been granted an Adjournment debate on the subject of Aujeszky's disease and its effect on the pig industry in the United Kingdom. My county—Suffolk—has more pig producers than most. The obvious exception is Humberside, as is shown by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and other hon. Members who feel very strongly about this issue.
The need for this debate was made urgent by the increased risk of the importation of Aujeszky's disease into this country, and by recent Government proposals to take over the remains of the fund established to eliminate the disease here. In many ways, the issues raised encapsulate the problems that membership of the European Community increasingly poses for the agricultural community. Those who understand the pig industry in this country will know that it is not subsidised as many other sectors of agriculture are. It is efficient, competitive and self-reliant. This self-reliance has never been better demonstrated than by the pig producers' determination to eliminate Aujeszky's disease from this country some years ago.
This debate is about how Aujeszky's disease was eradicated, the money that was used to do it, the likelihood of the reintroduction of the disease from other Community countries, and what should be done with the money left over from the eradication scheme.
Aujeszky's disease is a viral disease that causes high mortality and unthriftiness in both breeding and finishing pigs. Between 1983 and 1990, pig producers funded the eradication of Aujeszky's disease from Great Britain through a compulsory slaughter policy. The scheme followed a poll of producers in 1982, and had the full approval of Ministers. The Government recognised the strong case for eradicating the disease, but were unable to finance the programme. However, they agreed to provide the services of the state veterinary service for the purpose of having the compulsory slaughter policy carried out, and having the necessary blood testing conducted.
The total cost of the programme was £38 million, and after recovery of money through carcase sales, the net cost to pig farmers was £27 million, financed by a levy of 30p per pig, which was collected through the Meat and Livestock Commission and was held in the pig disease eradication fund. Complete freedom from the disease was declared in May 1991 and £780,000 now remains in the pig disease eradication fund, which belongs to the nation's pig producers.
Two recent changes have necessitated tonight's debate: first, imports of live pigs are to be permitted from January 1993, increasing the risk of reintroducing Aujeszky's disease into this country; secondly, the Government's stated intention to take over the money remaining in the fund, which belongs to pig producers. So, having eradicated the disease from this country, there is a renewed threat of it returning from Europe, and the money that could have been used to deal with that eventuality is to be taken over by the Ministry and used as it sees fit.
Because the Minister understands the matter well, he will appreciate the unique animal and plant health record of this country, helped to a large extent by the fact that we are an island and have been zealous in policing imports and maintaining the highest possible standards. From January this year, that position has changed; we are now obliged to allow the import of live pigs from other European countries in a way that was not previously permitted.
Time does not allow me to go into the various categories of pigs to be imported or how they will be checked and tested. Suffice it to say that the EC Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels has agreed various rules and our Ministry has been working hard to make things as tight as possible. Nevertheless, pigs will now be allowed in not just for breeding purposes but for further fattening and slaughter. They will be allowed in from all those Community countries where Aujeszky's is a notifiable disease. Although we are obliged under EC rules to allow those imports, all veterinary advice suggests that it will be a retrograde step and will increase the likelihood of importing diseases such as Aujeszky's.
The new rules governing the import of pigs for breeding are reasonably strict; those for pigs for further fattening are less so; and the rules on pigs for immediate slaughter are the least strict of all. How can we be certain that all those rules and regulations will be obeyed? More important, how can we be certain that, even with the closest possible control, infected pigs will not somehow slip through the net?
Aujeszky's is often difficult to spot in pigs without testing and there must be a real possibility, with greatly increased numbers of pigs of all kinds entering the country, that the disease will come with them. It is a sad day when our membership of the Community means lower standards of animal hygiene for this country. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at the import of live pigs and ask himself, given our excellent national record in the matter, whether those changes can be justified. He will recall that the Government intended to bring the standards of European farmers up to ours, not lower our standards to theirs or endanger our herds and flocks with imported problems.
Given the real dangers of importing Aujeszky's disease which I have described, one would have thought that the Government would have been only too happy to leave the £780,000 belonging to pig producers in the pig disease eradication fund against the eventuality that it may be needed again for its original purpose, which was to slaughter infected pigs and keep this country Aujeszky's free. It is pig producers' money, raised for a specific purpose, and there is every indication that it might one day have to be used again for the same purpose. I understand that the Minister has said that, in the event of the reappearance of Aujeszky's disease, a slaughter policy would be immediately implemented and the levy system reactivated. Pig producers insist that those funds have been raised for a specific purpose and should be held available, should the need arise.
In November, the Minister announced that, following the latest review of public spending, he would take the money from the pig disease eradication fund and use it for
some of the Agriculture Department's activities".

In fairness, the Ministry has always said that the money would be used to defray costs relating to the testing for, and control of, Aujeszky's disease. The Minister will no doubt tell the House that, under the Pig Industry Levy Act 1983, he is only using powers made available to him which allow him to use the pig producers' fund in this way, but those in the pig industry are deeply concerned about this proposal, and their concerns fall under a number of headings.
Most important, they believe—I agree with them—that this money belongs to them, the pig producers. Ministers have always recognised that this money was under the control of pig producers and operated through the industry by the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Board. Pig producers argue that the ministerial powers set out in the Pig Industry Levy Act 1983 were essentially public expenditure safeguards, and it was never envisaged that the powers would be used in this way, although the Minister has suggested from time to time to the industry that these funds could be spent on other purposes.
People in the industry are also deeply concerned that the Minister failed to consult them before the decision was taken, and they see it as being very much against the whole spirit of the Aujeszky's eradication scheme. The Government have talked of using the money to test for or monitor Aujeszky's disease, but the British Pig Producers Association, with which I have had discussions, has put to me the important point that, in its view, the Government have a statutory obligation to meet the conditions of Aujeszky's disease-free status as required by the European Commission decision on trade guarantees. Given this obligation, the BPPA believes that it would be quite wrong to expect the industry to bear the cost of any surveillance work.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way in an Adjournment debate. I would like to say a brief word of support for the excellent case that is being put forward, not only as an Opposition speaker but also as a Humberside Member with a significant pig industry in my constituency. Would the hon. Member care to speculate whether, if the Government do use this money for purposes not connected with either testing or eliminating Aujeszky's disease, and if we reach the position that he has outlined, in which, with the change to the single market, there may be an outbreak, the Government have a moral obligation to replace an equal amount of money in order to combat any such outbreak?

Mr. Lord: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, because, as I mentioned earlier, Humberside is one of the places where there is great worry about this matter. I take very much the point that he makes—that if, at the end of our pleas to the Minister, it is decided that the money will not be used for the purposes for which it should be used, then there ought to be some very firm commitment that, if it is needed, it will be replaced exactly as it is now, at the appropriate time and without delay.
The BPPA is also concerned about discrimination against the pig industry in the way I was describing earlier when it comes to testing, because similar health monitoring arrangements by the state veterinary service are conducted for other livestock sectors out of public funds.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the pig industry believes that it is being penalised for its self-reliance and far-sightedness because of public spending demands now in other agricultural sectors. It is greatly concerned that the proposed action could be counter-productive and could discourage pig farmers and farmers in other agricultural sectors from embarking on industry-financed schemes. Perhaps most important of all, it feels that there is a grave danger of damaging the trust which should and, I believe, does exist between pig producers and our Government.
On a personal note, I find that hardly a day passes without my hearing of some new and complex regulation which will damage some section of our agriculture industry—whether it is the amount of set-aside for our cereal farmers, the cost of veterinary inspection for our chicken producers, the closure of our small slaughterhouses, the effects of salmonella regulations on our egg producers or the subject of our debate tonight, Aujeszky's disease—all in the name of Europe and progress. Time unfortunately does not allow me to develop this theme too far, and I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would call me to order if I did, but I object very strongly when Ministers return from negotiations in Brussels to tell us that they have triumphed yet again and that we are to be allowed to go on doing what we were doing quite happily before—only now we will not be able to do it quite as well as we used to.

Mr. Michael Brown: As a Humberside Member, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) for initiating tonight's debate. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) represents more pigs than humans. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central agree that the most important action that my hon. Friend the Minister can take is to continue the dialogue that he had with the British Pig Breeders Association before Christmas, when its members were courteously received by him, and continue that consultation process? The association feels deeply about the fact that there has been no consultation on the issue.

Mr. Lord: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is vital that our ministerial team maintains close contact with the pig producers. I know that they have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister already, and I am sure that they will continue to do so, as they place much importance on it.
I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—who the House knows is a fair man, concerned to do all he can to help agriculture—to hold further consultations with the pig industry with two objectives in mind. First, he should ensure that everything possible has been done to keep Aujeszky's disease out of the country. Secondly, we should leave the pig producers' money where it is, to be used if the industry is faced with Aujeszky's disease again. Above all, he must ensure that the money is not used for any other purposes unless and until the pig producers agree on the alternative course of action.

Miss Emma Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was kind enough to invite me to speak for a moment, because he knows how strongly I support his

case. I thank him for giving me this brief opportunity, and shall curtail my remarks still further, as all I need to do is say what a powerful case my hon. Friend has made, how wonderfully he has presented it and how important the subject is that he has chosen.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to bring to see him in early December the most important pig producer in my constituency, Mr. Brian Jones, chairman of the pig committee of the National Farmers Union, together with the upcoming chairman of the British Pig Breeders Association. The subject is important to many hon. Members and their constituents. Today there are, alas, too few farming Members of Parliament, but we are fortunate in having outstanding Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Their dedication is shown by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are both present for tonight's important debate. Pig farmers are of great importance to many of us, and we are deeply unhappy that our Government seem to have mistreated that important group.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on securing tonight's important Adjournment debate. I am extremely grateful to him for providing me with an opportunity to underline Her Majesty's Government's firm commitment to a healthy future for the excellent pig industry in this country.
I note the interest in the debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who, as she said, has already brought a delegation to see me with whom I discussed some of the issues. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West that this is an extremely important debate, and as such is vested with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central said, the eradication of Aujeszky's disease in the United Kingdom was an outstanding success, achieved by a determined co-operative effort between industry and Government. The co-operative instinct that gave rise to that effort is perhaps less well developed in this country than it is among some of our major competitors, and it is a tribute to the United Kingdom pig industry—which we freely give—that it should have taken such an important initiative.
Although many people have made important contributions to the effort, I am sure that the House would join me in paying particular tribute to the efforts of Jim Blanchard, whose services were deservedly recognised with an award in the latest honours list.
Before I speak in some detail about the decision to use the outstanding funds, it may be helpful briefly to describe the disease and its history in the United Kingdom, although I do not intend to go over ground that has already been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central.
Aujeszky's was first recorded in this country in 1953, and was made notifiable in 1979 when there were only 34


cases. The presence of Aujeszky's was nevertheless a cause for great concern in those areas where our pig population is concentrated.
A survey in 1982 suggested that the disease was spreading within the United Kingdom, and as a result an eradication programme was introduced.
I should perhaps stress that the disease has no implications whatever for human health, and that therefore disease control benefits only the producer. As a consequence, the Government did not consider it appropriate for taxpayers in general to meet the whole cost of the eradication programme. For that reason, it was agreed that action would depend upon the willingness of producers to fund the costs which would arise from the need to compensate farmers whose stock was subject to compulsory slaughter for animal health purposes.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister makes an eloquent case for identifying the levy funds, which came from this sector for agriculture and were not part of the Ministry's general funds. That is the nub of the argument. As hon. Members from all parties who signed the early-day motion have said, this was an identifiable sum that came straight from the industry and should go back to that sector.

Mr. Soames: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to develop my argument for a little longer than one minute and 35 seconds, he would have heard me cover that ground.
A poll of producers confirmed the industry's willingness to proceed on the basis that I have described. The Pig Industry Levy Act 1983 provided for the establishment of a levy to be collected by the Meat and Livestock Commission. The Act extended the powers of the commission under the Agriculture Act 1967 so as to meet the costs incurred by the Minister as a consequence of exercising his general powers under the Animal Health Act 1981, specifically in relation to Aujeszky's disease. This levy amounted to 30p per pig slaughtered or exported live. The money was held by the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd. which was created solely for this purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central said.
The cost of the compensation payable on slaughtered pigs under the Aujeszky's eradication programme was recovered from those funds. In addition, the fund provided compensation to owners for consequential losses, the Government's contribution being to undertake the key tasks of the eradication programme—investigating suspect cases and implementing control measures, which led to substantial costs in terms of administration, staff and veterinary services.
About £27 million was collected over the six-year period of active Aujeszky's eradication measures and 432,262 pigs were slaughtered, from 523 herds. That was double the initial estimate of 250 herds which it was believed would need to be slaughtered when the eradication programme was launched. The last confirmed case occurred in September 1989. Freedom from Aujeszky's disease was formally declared in May 1991, bringing the eradication programme to a highly successful conclusion, and greatly enhancing the marketability of British pigs.
Once the disease had been eradicated and the levy had ceased to be collected, there remained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central said, a balance of some £700,000, which has grown with interest. There are provisions within the Act for any such money to be used at the direction of the Minister for the benefit of the industry. The precise use to which this surplus is to be put is central to this debate, and has obviously concerned the many leaders of the industry and industry representatives with whom I and my right hon. Friend have had discussions, which were always conducted in an extremely robust but courteous manner.
This aspect was touched upon on Second Reading of the Pig Industry Levy Bill. The then Minister of State was, as always, very clear in his comments on the matter. He recognised that the issue gave rise to some anxiety in the industry, and he assured the House that any money that was available would be returned to the sector that had provided the funds. However, he also made it clear that it was impossible to be specific about any surplus funds, and refused to speculate on the precise purposes for which surplus moneys should be used.
In the past, we have considered with the industry a number of possible uses for the surplus. Initially, discussions focused on possible research and development projects, and we have agreed to use a small amount of money in that way. However, we received no firm proposals from the industry about how the funds might be used, and in the context of the most recent public expenditure round discussions, it was decided that the remaining balance from the levy should be used for continuing work on Aujeszky's disease that was of immediate benefit to the industry.
Having eradicated the disease, our priority now, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is to secure trade arrangements that will ensure, so far as possible, that the disease will not be reintroduced into this country. This requires us to secure recognition of our disease-free status and appropriate trade guarantees from our partners. These efforts, after long and difficult negotiations, have been extremely successful. The necessary veterinary trade guarantees came into force at the beginning of the year, and I believe that the industry recognises their value and soundness.
Without those trade guarantees, there would have been a real risk of reinfection. This would have led to renewed expense to the industry in trying to maintain our disease-free status through the existing mechanism. That is particularly important with a disease like Aujeszky's. The signs of disease are highly variable and there may be sub-clinical infection. It is necessary to test all cull boars, and to have all samples submitted to veterinary investigation centres for examination. In this way, we are effectively screening the whole national herd, and should be able to detect infection at an early enough stage to take prompt and effective action.
It is the cost of this monitoring that is to be offset by the use of the surplus funds collected through the levy. It is clear that this work is of direct and immediate benefit to the industry. Freedom from Aujeszky's benefits all producers, not just the exporter. It was the potential effect on production which won the support of the industry for action. I have assured the industry—I repeat the assurance to the House—that not a penny of the accumulated funds will be spent by the Minister other than on Aujeszky's disease.
As my hon. Friend is aware, I met the National Farmers Union and representatives from the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Board before Christmas. At that meeting, I made it clear that there could be no going back on the decision, but that we were keen to see a continuation of the close co-operation which has always existed in relation to Aujeszky's disease. My officials are consulting the industry on the details of the surveillance necessary to maintain this country's disease-free status, which is what we all want. We shall also be discussing with it ways of minimising the costs of the necessary work and the financial control mechanisms, as clearly we wish to use these outstanding funds in the most effective, efficient and prudent way possible.

Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soames: I must get on: I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me.
As I said at the outset, it is the pig industry that benefits from the freedom from Aujeszky's disease, and it is entirely right that the industry should focus on the real costs of control. It is regrettable, of course—

Mr. Townend: I wish to make an important point. I accept the arguments that my hon. Friend has advanced, but will he assure the industry that he recognises that, when the fund is completely depleted, the monitoring will still have to continue? Will the cost of the monitoring then be paid for by the Government, or will another levy be introduced?

Mr. Soames: No. My hon. Friend will be aware that, if the fund ran out and by some awful chance the disease were to reappear, we would continue with exactly the same slaughter policy, and if necessary we would have to have another levy.

Mr. Townend: With respect, my hon. Friend has misunderstood my question.

Mr. Soames: I must continue.
It is regrettable that the industry should feel that it has not been adequately consulted. That is a point that has been made to me very clearly. I was under no illusions

about the initial response of the industry, but I think that it now believes that we are taking a positive approach. It is an inevitable result of the way in which the Government's spending decisions are taken that advance consultation is often not possible. I do not accept that there is a legal obligation to consult before Ministers use the powers that have been given to them in legislation to direct how the funds should be used.
The industry's financial involvement in the maintenance regime will serve to underline the importance of a sensible approach. It maintains the investment of the industry as a whole in its well-deserved high health status. The surplus is finite, and no decisions have been taken on the future financing of ongoing work once the fund is exhausted. In what is, I very much hope, the unlikely event of an outbreak of the disease, the existing controls, including slaughter, will apply. As now, if the fund proves inadequate, we shall have to look to reactivating the levy.
I cannot end without responding to the main points made by my hon. Friend. It is my belief that the Aujeszky's disease story is one of proper achievement. Together, in a short period of six years, Government and the industry have eradicated a disease of sufficient economic importance that producers saw the benefits to them even when faced with the necessity of a levy. It was a wise investment, and one worth protecting. Only Denmark has achieved the same Aujeszky's disease-free status as Great Britain. Disease freedom must pay dividends in terms of increased production and enhanced export opportunities.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. I have noted the points made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and I commend the work of my hon. Friend and the Ministry to the House.

Mr. John Townend: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Has the Minister given way?

Mr. Soames: No.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.